Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

DARTFORD TUNNEL BILL (By Order)

PORTSLADE AND SOUTHWICK OUTFALL SEWERAGE BOARD BILL (By Order)

TAMAR BRIDGE BILL (By Order)

Read a Second time and committed.

WORKINGTON HARBOUR AND DOCK (TRANSFER) BILL (By Order)

Read a Second time and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

BARRY CORPORATION BILL (By Order)

Second Reading deferred till Wednesday next.

CROYDON CORPORATION BILL (By Order)

STOCKTON-ON-TEES CORPORATION BILL (By Order)

Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.

PETITIONS

Road Communications

Mr. Teeling: I beg to ask leave to present a petition signed by over 119,000 persons resident in the south coast area and other parts of Great Britain to show that there is an urgent need in these areas for improving road communications and that the delay in carrying out such improvements is detrimental to the well-being of the areas and the country as a whole. The prayer of the Petition is as follows:
Wherefore your petitioners pray that to ensure the early completion of adequate modern roads in Great Britain arrangements shall be made forthwith to raise a special road loan to provide the necessary funds during the period required to carry out this essential work under a comprehensive and scientifically planned scheme, so avoiding the delays and frustrations which have proved to be inevitable under the present system of financing road works by means of annual grants.

And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

To lie upon the Table.

Old-Age Pensions

Mr. T. Brown: I beg to ask leave to present a petition signed by 133,000 people over the age of 21 years who reside in the United Kingdom, which points out the urgent necessity for improving the basic pension payable to old-age pensioners. The prayer of the Petition is as follows:
Wherefore your petitioners pray that legislation should be passed forthwith for the relief of old-age pensioners and those who may hereafter become entitled to old-age pensions, by raising the basic rate of the old-age pension to the extent necessary to meet the essential amenities of life.
And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, etc.
Under Standing Order No. 92, I ask the learned Clerk of the House to read the Petition in its entirety.

The CLERK OF THE HOUSE read the Petition, which was as follows:
To The Honourable The Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.

THE HUMBLE PETITION OF THE UNDERSIGNED OLD-AGE PENSIONERS AND OTHERS IN GREAT BRITAIN.
Sheweth:

1. Those sections of the community who are in receipt of old-age pensions are suffering great hardship on acount of the continued increase in the cost of living;
2. The basic rate of the old-age pension of £2 per week for a single person and £3 5s. to a married couple is totally insufficient for the purchase of the barest necessities of life;
3. Most wage or salary earning sections of the community have received increases in rates of wages or salary to offset the rise in the cost of living;
4. Old-age pensioners' health will improve if given better health service, namely, free prescriptions and more hospital accommodation for their welfare.

Wherefore your Petitioners pray that legislation should be passed forthwith for the relief of old-age pensioners and those who may hereafter become entitled to old-age pensions, by raising the basic rate of the old-age pension to the extent necessary to meet the essential amenities of life.
And, your Petitioners as in duty bound, will ever pray, etc.,

To lie upon the Table.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROADS

Chester Ring Road

Mr. Temple: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether the proposed Chester Ring Road, Southern Section, will be included in the five-year plan commencing 1st April, 1960.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. G. R. H. Nugent): I cannot say at present as the line has not been finally established.

Mr. Temple: Is the Minister aware of the acute traffic congestion in and around Chester, and will he give an assurance that all preliminary planning will be expedited?

Mr. Nugent: Yes, Sir. I can give that assurance. A good deal of the preparatory work has already been done, and we shall push on with it as fast as we can.

Requirements (Departmental Planning Section)

Mr. Gresham Cooke: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what is the present staff of the special planning section of his Department which is reviewing the future road requirements of this country for the next two decades; what are their qualifications; how far this section will be reviewing the need for urban motorways as well as other motorways; and how far it is proposed to increase the size of the staff and the scope of their work at an early date.

The Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Harold Watkinson): At headquarters, a staff of eleven engineers and draughtsmen are engaged on the review of future road requirements. In the regions additional work is being done by the divisional road engineers' staffs. At present work is being concentrated on the trunk road requirements, but urban problems, including urban motorways, are also being reviewed.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: As freedom of traffic resulting from petrol rationing on urban roads at the present time would give this special planning section some evidence by which it can judge economies of fuel and time in urban districts, would

my right hon. Friend ask the section to give special attention to urban motorways and the evidence relating to the freedom of traffic at the present time?

Mr. Watkinson: Yes, Sir. I think I ought to explain that the job of this section is to prepare a long-term plan for the roads of this country. It is not dealing with the short-term position arising from petrol rationing.

Mr. Ernest Davies: As this is the first that we have heard of this new long-term plan, will the Minister inform the House whether it is intended to publish it, and if so when, and also whether the money is going to be available from the Treasury to carry it out?

Mr. Watkinson: I said before, but perhaps the hon. Gentleman missed it, that we are, of course, carrying out a long-term investigation into the roads of this country. That is a quite proper part of the work of my Ministry and, when they are ready, the results of the investigation will be published.

Severn Bridge

Mr. Awbery: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what recent developments have taken place with reference to the construction of the Severn bridge; what is the present position; and if he will make a statement on his future intentions regarding this roadway.

Mr. Watkinson: The present position is that I appreciate the importance of this bridge and consider it as being among the major road projects which merit high priority. I cannot as yet say when I can fit it into my programme.

Mr. Awbery: Is the Minister aware that this matter is very urgent both for South Wales and the West of England, that the Severn Tunnel is seventy years old and that if there is a block it means a divergence of traffic for seventy miles? On Monday last the line was blocked for five hours and trains from London to South Wales had to be diverted through Gloucester. Will the right hon. Gentleman look at the urgency of the matter from that angle?

Mr. Watkinson: Yes, I will, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will bring his persuasion to bear in order to get agreement about tolls and other difficulties.

Mr. Ness Edwards: Is the Minister aware that there is to be a conference next month in Cardiff of local authorities which may form a bridge authority, and cannot more encouragement be given to those authorities?

Mr. Watkinson: I should be very interested to hear what they have to say when they have hat their meeting.

Toll Bridges

Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation, in view of his decision that no new major bridge project in this country can be authorised unless it includes provision for the levying of tolls upon those using it, whether it is his intention still to devote part of the funds available for major road improvement to freeing existing toll bridges; and what particular schemes involving grants from his Department for the freeing of toll bridges on major roads have been approved at the present time by him.

Mr. Watkinson: At present, expenditure on the redemption of tolls on existing bridges must take a much lower priority than many other road improvements. The policy on new or re-constructed bridges is to free from tolls those in the ordinary road programme, such as Selby bridge or Conway bridge, but to impose tolls on certain major bridge or tunnel projects, such as Dartford-Purfleet tunnel or the Tyne crossing.

Captain Pilkington: Is my right hon. Friend aware that tolls are a very retrograde step, in that they inevitably mean long queues of cars wasting time, money and petrol waiting for tickets?

Mr. Watkinson: I cannot agree at all. Toll on major bridges and their associated roadways are used all over the world, and if they make it easier for me to get on with building bridges I am only too glad to make use of them.

Mr. Strauss: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that tolls were very useful and commonly in use on most of the major roads in the United States, but there is now a general feeling that that policy was wrong and a movement in the opposite direction?

Mr. Watkinson: My understanding is that this is the result of the tolls having already paid for the bridges.

Mr. J. Hynd: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that it is the intention of the Government by this progressive policy of toll bridges to give every encouragement to the restoration of stage coaches on these roads?

Constructions and Improvements

Mr. G. Wilson: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation the value and mileage of work of new road construction and major improvements authorised by him year by year from 1953–54 to 1956–57.

Mr. Watkinson: The total ultimate cost to the Exchequer of the works authorised in these years will be £90,700,000. I am circulating in the OFFICIAI. REPORT the year-by-year totals.

Mr. Wilson: Can, my right hon. Friend say whether the year-by-year figures show a steady improvement in mileage and value?

Mr. Watkinson: Yes, Sir, they show it very considerably.

Following are the figures:


1953–54
…
£6,700,000


1954–55
…
£20,000,000


1955–56
…
£30,000,000


1956–57
…
(estimated) £34,000,000




(excluding Scotland)

These figures do not include the share borne by the local authorities of the cost of classified road schemes.

I regret that I am unable to give the mileages of road involved without a considerable amount of research, which I do not think would be justified.

Highway Grants

Mr. Dye: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what changes in the present system of highway grants he intends to make; in which financial year they will take effect; and, so far as county councils are concerned, what will be the difference in the amount of grant to be received as compared with the year 1955–56.

Mr. Watkinson: My review of the present system of highway grants will be undertaken as part of the general review of local government finance. I shall discuss my proposals in due course with the local authorities concerned, and until that has been done I cannot say what changes will be made or what their effect will be.

Mr. Dye: Will the right hon. Gentleman take into account the rising cost of making and maintaining roads and the enormous contribution which the motorists make to the Treasury, and divert some more of that towards road maintenance and improvement and not so much from the local rates?

Accidents, London

Mr. Lipton: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation to what extent road accidents in the London area have been reduced since petrol rationing.

Mr. Nugent: Casualties arising from road accidents in the Metropolitan Police Area, from the 17th December, 1956, to the 31st January, 1957, were 5,716 compared with 7,119 between the same dates in 1955–56.

Mr. Lipton: While thanking the Parliamentary Secretary for that reply, may I ask him if he is aware that the Government have reduced the number of accidents by diminishing the number of private cars, and will he give an assurance that he or his right hon. Friend will not exclude the possibility, if it becomes necessary, of imposing some restriction on private cars during the rush hours, for example, in Central London, when other traffic must have priority? Is it not desirable to maintain this improvement even if it means some such restriction?

Mr. Nugent: While I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman in his desire to reduce road accidents, I must tell him quite flatly that my right hon. Friend and I do not intend to introduce restriction of motor cars coming into central London. We feel that other measures which we are proposing will be more effective and, what is more important, more acceptable.

40 m.p.h. Speed Limit

Mr. Lipton: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation how many local authorities in the London area have agreed to the proposed increase of the speed limit to 40 miles an hour.

Mr. Nugent: Forty-nine local authorities in the London Traffic Area have agreed to the proposal to introduce a speed limit of 40 m.p.h. on certain roads in their areas.

Mr. Lipton: Will the hon. Gentleman say how many local authorities have not supported this proposal?

Mr. Nugent: I can help the hon. Member to this extent, that 67 local authorities were consulted and 49 have responded in this way.

Oral Answers to Questions — SHIPPING

Fishing Vessel Casualties (Insurance Inquiries)

Mr. Knox Cunningham: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation, in view of the fact that skippers and mates of trawlers can at present be punished twice for the same offence by being prohibited from earning their livelihood as skipper or mate by a private inquiry held by the British Trawlers Re-Insurance Association and by having their respective certificates cancelled or suspended by a court of formal investigation set up under the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, if he will introduce legislation preventing insurance or reinsurance associations from using their private inquiries for this purpose.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Airey Neave): No, Sir. The inquiries by insurance associations into casualties to fishing vessels have for many years contributed to high standards of navigation. The British Trawlers Re-Insurance Association have, however, agreed that, when an inquiry is held into a trawler casualty by a court of formal investigation under the Merchant Shipping Acts, the Association will adopt for insurance purposes the same term of suspension of an officer's certificate as that imposed by the court.

Mr. Knox Cunningham: Will my hon. Friend not agree that to bring a member of the public before a private court held by any professional body or association and to deprive him of a chance of earning his livelihood is undesirable? Will my hon. Friend make that clear, and will he also make clear that the inquiries which are held by these insurance interests should not take place before the public inquiries are held by his Department?

Mr. Neave: In answer to the latter part of my hon. Friend's supplementary, I


think there is considerable safeguard in the agreement of the British Trawlers Re-Insurance Association that any prohibition which it may impose will not be at variance with the suspension that a court may impose in certain serious cases. I have investigated very carefully my hon. Friend's point about this. Refusal to insure does not mean, of course, a total ban on employment except in ships insured by the Association.

Major Wall: Is it not a fact that insurance companies must have some safeguards when they place insurance of ships, and, therefore, should be able to investigate the competence of the master or any member of the crew?

Mr. Neave: Certainly. We could not prevent them refusing to insure.

Scottish Fishing Vessels (Life-Rafts)

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he will specify the nature and extent of the supply difficulties which are delaying and frustrating the supply to owners of Scottish fishing vessels who have ordered rubber life-rafts; what steps he is taking to resolve those difficulties; and when such rubber life-rafts will be supplied to all vessels which by the rule which came into operation on 1st October, 1956, are required to carry such life-rafts.

Mr. Watkinson: The shortage of life-rafts is due to the inability of one manufacturer to fulfil, as yet, all the orders he has received. I am informed that 173 Scottish fishing vessels are still unequipped. Rafts are, however, available from other sources and my surveyors, when inspecting fishing boats, are now advising owners that if their vessels are not equipped within twenty-one days they will be detained.

Mr. Hughes: Does the Minister realise that this is a matter of very great importance because these rubber rafts were used and resulted in saving many lives and that if they are not forthcoming it may result in many tragedies in the future? Will the right hon. Gentleman see that the utmost expedition is used in supplying these rafts?

Mr. Watkinson: Yes, Sir. I am very grateful to the hon. and learned Member

for raising this matter, because there is no better way of saving life at sea than by the use of these rafts.

Captain Duncan: Is my right hon. Friend aware that although at the beginning there was a difficulty in getting supplies of these rubber rafts, they are, in fact, now coming forward? I know that in one fishing port in my constituency they have been delivered.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT

Motor Fuel Rationing

Sir I. Fraser: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he is now in a position to announce his plans for petrol supplies for motor coaches during the coming holiday season.

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he will now state the fuel allocations to be made available to public service vehicle operators for the forthcoming rationing period, following 8th April, 1957, having regard to the present allocation of 50 per centum of normal usage, and the special need for such operators to be fully informed as to fuel that will be available to them for long distance coach traffic during the summer holiday period, for express services, excursions, tours, seaside visits and associated peregrinations.

Sir F. Medlicott: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if in view of the importance of motor coach traffic to the prosperity of the seaside and other holiday resorts during the coming summer, he will make an early statement of the amount of petrol which will be available for such coaches.

Mr. G. Wilson: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he will make a statement as to the future of fuel rationing for goods vehicles.

Mr. Watkinson: My right hon. Friend the Paymaster-General will be making a general statement about fuel rationing after Questions, and I would ask my hon. Friends to await what he has to say.

Sir I. Fraser: Can my right hon. Friend assure me that my Question relating to holidays and seaside resorts will be included in the Answer?

Mr. Watkinson: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Nabarro: Will my right hon. Friend be quite sure that the statement at the end of Questions today is comprehensive in character and has special regard to the last two words of my Question, namely, "associated peregrinations."?

Mr. Watkinson: I should have to ask my hon. Friend, with his lucid mind, to interpret those words for me.

Mr. Lewis: Can the Minister explain why it is that during the last three or four days the Press has been announcing that this statement would be made? How did the Press know that, and how was it able to say what the statement would contain? Can the Minister say from where the leakage has come?

Mr. Watkinson: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman had better wait to see whether the Press is right or wrong.

Mr. Hamilton: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what representations have been made to him by the Scottish Area of the Road Haulage Association Limited, concerning the inadequacy of petrol allocations to association members; and what steps he proposes to take to alleviate the position.

Mr. Watkinson: After reviewing with my regional transport commissioners the working of the rationing scheme, I have recently made a further allocation to Scotland from the small headquarters reserve of derv in addition to the one I made some weeks ago.

Mr. Hamilton: Is the Minister quite satisfied that this will allay the anxieties of the Association and that it will not lead to increased unemployment in Scotland? Does he not agree that the original allocations were rather a mean way of treating an association which, after all, contributed substantially to the Tory Party funds?

Mr. Watkinson: The Road Haulage Association has expressed itself to me as being well satisfied with the way in which rationing has been conducted. If the hon. Gentleman has any particular point to make, I will examine it carefully.

Road Traffic Act (Parking Schemes)

Mr. Ernest Davies: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what parking schemes have been received by

him from local authorities in accordance with the provisions of the Road Traffic Act, 1956; and what action he has taken on them.

Mr. Watkinson: None, Sir. These schemes require much preparation, but, as I told the hon. Member on 13th February, I do not think local authorities will be backward in submitting schemes to me.

Mr. Davies: While I am grateful for that information, may I ask the Minister whether he does not appreciate that there are certain schemes which can be instituted without waiting for the full schemes from local authorities? Is it not desirable to carry out those parts of the recommendations of the interim report, such as those relating to increasing the number of one-way streets and free parking streets, without waiting for the full schemes which require a public hearing before these matters are begun?

Mr. Watkinson: I quite agree with that, and my Department is looking into it now.

Driving Tests

Mr. Janner: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation on what basis it is estimated that his departmental appropriations in aid will diminish by £370,000 during the coming financial year as a result of the abolition of driving tests.

Mr. Nugent: The figure of £370,000 quoted by the hon. Member represents the expected deficiency of revenue from driving test fees in the current financial year ending on 31st March next. No further applications for normal driving tests were accepted after 13th November, 1956.

Mr. Janner: In view of the loss of revenue, does not the hon. Gentleman think that is an additional reason for getting these driving tests going as quickly as possible? Will he also consider giving a little more petrol to driving schools to enable them to teach people?

Mr. Nugent: The second part of the hon. Member's supplementary question is, of course, a fresh question. If he cares to put in on the Order Paper, I shall be pleased to look at it. Regarding the first part, my right hon. Friend has already announced that we hope to restart driving


tests on a limited scale in April, and we are making every effort to get them going as quickly as possible.

Mr. E. Fletcher: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation (1) if he will now arrange for driving tests to be resumed, and for driving examiners to be released from administering the fuel rationing scheme;
(2) what offers he has received from the Motor Schools Association of Great Britain for operating an emergency driving test scheme; and what is his policy with regard thereto.

Mr. Watkinson: As I said in reply to Questions on 23rd January, I hope to resume driving tests on a limited scale in the latter part of April. The need for any emergency scheme does not therefore arise.

Mr. Fletcher: Is the Minister aware that it does arise? Is it not his desire, in the interest of public safety, to limit the number of casualties and see that the people who are driving have passed a test? Is he not aware that the Motor Schools Association has offered its skilled instructors, who are now not busy, as teachers to conduct emergency tests, and why does not the Minister avail himself of that offer?

Mr. Watkinson: The hon. Gentleman is not quite up-to-date with his information. I have met the Motor Schools Association several times over the past three months, when we have discussed this. That emergency scheme would have been valuable only if I could not restart driving tests by using my own examiners. I have said that I hope to do that.

Mr. Ernest Davies: In view of the large numbers of drivers waiting for tests, will the Minister consider increasing the number of examiners? Otherwise, the backlog will take a long time to dispose of.

Mr. Watkinson: The number of examiners is at full strength for the first time for many years, and my Department will discuss with their appropriate trade union any way in which it is possible to speed up the tests.

Mr. Chetwynd: When the tests are resumed, will the Minister ensure that priority is given to those who were on the waiting list when they were suspended?

Mr. Watkinson: I have already said that we cannot have a special priority scheme, as it would be unfair to a large number of people. But we shall deal with the people as quickly as we can.

Canals (Traffic)

Mr. Grant-Ferris: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what efforts have been made to stimulate traffic on the canals in order to alleviate the fuel position at the moment; and how far these efforts have met with success.

Mr. Watkinson: Although the fuel shortage has reduced some normal traffics, there have been many useful transfers of traffic to the canals and, in some areas, the increase has been about 10 per cent. I hope that the spare capacity which carriers still have will be increasingly used.

Mr. Grant-Ferris: I thank my right hon. Friend for that quite satisfactory answer. Does it not show what can be done on the canals when a real effort is made? Does it not show, further, that even greater success could be achieved were an independent authority in competition with the British Transport Commission?

Mr. Watkinson: I am glad to have satisfied my hon. Friend at least in part. As to the long-term aspect, we must await the findings of the Bowes Committee.

Mr. Fernyhough: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that our fuel difficulties arise because hon. Gentlemen opposite wanted to put a block on a certain canal?

London Omnibuses (Fuel Savings)

Mr. Gresham Cooke: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he will give an estimate as to what savings of fuel per week are being made by London Transport omnibuses as a whole now, resulting from reduced traffic, as compared with the period before fuel rationing.

Mr. Watkinson: I cannot say, because the saving in fuel from better traffic conditions cannot be separated from other effects of fuel rationing, such as heavier passenger loadings, concentration on peak services and reduction of off peak services.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: As the London Transport must be saving fuel at the present time and must, therefore, be saving money, will my right hon. Friend encourage London Transport to set aside the money so saved towards a reduction of fares in the future rather than an increase of wages?

Mr. Watkinson: My answer said that it was not possible to ascertain that fact.

Mr. Ernest Davies: Has the Minister overlooked the fact that there has been—and will he inform his hon. Friend that there has been—an increase in the price of petrol and also a shilling increase in the tax?

Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: Will my right hon. Friend be very careful that he does not break the golden rule set by all nationalised industries, which is to give the public worse service at increased cost?

Mr. Watkinson: I will be very careful, anyway.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL AVIATION

Hunting Clan Airline (Viscount Aircraft)

Mr. McAdden: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he will allow Hunting Clan airline to substitute new Viscount aircraft, which they have bought and which are costing £200 a week each while grounded at London Airport, for outmoded Vikings on their African air routes.

Mr. Watkinson: These routes are operated as "Colonial Coach Services", which were designed to create a new class of cheap travel appropriate for older-type aircraft and reserved to the independent operators. I am reviewing the basis of these services to ensure that the operators continue to have opportunities for development appropriate to present day changing conditions. To assist me I have asked the Air Transport Advisory Council for its advice as a matter of urgency.

Mr. McAdden: I thank my right hon. Friend for his recognition of the urgency of this problem in that he has referred it to the A.T.A.C. Would he also consider giving the A.T.A.C. some lead in this

matter? Would he not, for instance, indicate that B.O.A.C. and foreign airlines use the same planes for first-class and third-class services? If it is good enough for nationalised undertakings, is it not good enough for independent airlines as well?

Mr. Watkinson: That is not quite the whole matter. The companies concerned knew very well what were the regulations, and, indeed, I think I have done them a good turn, because as yet this company has made no application to the A.T.A.C. and I have done it for the company.

Mr. Beswick: Does not the position disclosed by hon. Gentlemen opposite support the criticism made from this side of the House at the time that the so-called three-tier system was impracticable, and that if the opportunity is to be given for the one service to increase its standard equal facilities must be given to the Corporations to lower their fares if they wish to? Is the Minister aware that this is a matter of high policy which he should settle and not any other body?

Mr. Watkinson: This is an important matter. As I think both hon. Members know, there is a completely new fare structure likely to come into the general air routes of the world which will introduce a new high density third-class fare which will change the whole pattern of the fare structure. Therefore, it is right that the A.T.A.C., which constitutionally exists to advise me, should look into the whole matter.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: In view of the fact that this is a most controversial and difficult problem, as everyone is aware, will the Minister, before putting into operation the results of his consideration or any advice he may receive, report the matter to the House, either in a statement or by a White Paper, so that we may consider what is his policy before he implements it?

Mr. Watkinson: I think it would be in the public interest that any view or advice given to me by the A.T.A.C. should be made public.

Mr. Tilney: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Sierre Leone, which is not served by B.O.A.C. and has to rely on Air France, has long been looking forward to the introduction of these Viscounts?

Mr. Rankin: Will the Minister assure the House that nothing he does in this matter will prejudice the interests of the Corporations?

Mr. Watkinson: I am not going into this. I have referred it to the right body, which is a wise and independent body, and which will give me advice. I have said that the advice I receive will be made public. I do not intend to make up my mind until I have received that advice.

Mr. McAdden: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the questions put by hon. Members opposite, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Scottish Aviation Limited (Hotel, Prestwick)

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what are his arrangements with the concessionaire, Scottish Aviation Limited, in respect of the hotel at Prestwick; and what profits he received last year.

Mr. Watkinson: The concession held by Scottish Aviation, Ltd., in respect of hotel and catering services at Prestwick airport provides for payment to my Department of a percentage of the gross turnover, together with an annual sum representing the cost of services provided by the Department. It would be contrary to established practice to disclose the amounts of these payments.

Mr. Hughes: In view of the fact that the whole of the finances of Prestwick Airport have been recently examined, that a loss of £8,000 is shown and that every year, as a result of the airport, visitors are being brought to this hotel at the rate of 210,000 a year, is the right hon. Gentleman quite satisfied that he is getting sufficient revenue from this?

Mr. Watkinson: I shall have to look into that. I am always willing to make more money if I can.

Prestwick Airport (Runways)

Mr. Rankin: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what runway extension is proposed for Prestwick Airport in order to make it available for use by aircraft like the Boeing 707 and the Douglas DC-8.

Mr. Watkinson: I cannot yet add anything to the reply given to my hon. Friend

the Member for East Aberdeenshire (Sir R. Boothby) on 24th October, 1956.

Mr. Rankin: Does the Minister remember that about three weeks ago he said that at least we were getting a new control tower at Prestwick? On the instalment plan, I thought he might now give the extended runway. Does he not realise that Prestwick Airport, unless there is an extension of the third runway, will not be capable of use by these large new modern aircraft? Will he go into this matter and let us know exactly what is the position in regard to the runway extension at Prestwick?

Mr. Watkinson: I can tell the hon. Gentleman now. There is a small extension being made.

Mr. Rankin: I understand that.

Mr. Watkinson: But the big extension really must wait as it has to wait in all other international airports, until we know more about the runway performance of these new jet aircraft.

East Scottish Services

Sir W. Anstruther-Gray: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation how many proposals are now before him for improving the East of Scotland air services; how many of these cater for an additional port of call; and what aerodromes his Department is prepared to provide.

Mr. Neave: I understand that British European Airways are proposing to improve the frequency and convenience of some of their existing East Scottish services this summer, but my right hon. Friend has received no proposal involving any additional port of call in that area; the third part of the Question does not therefore arise.

Sir W. Anstruther-Gray: May I thank my hon. Friend for his encouraging reply to the first part of the Question? Will he not take steps to have an extra port of call made available between Edinburgh and Aberdeen, because it is very much needed?

Mr. Neave: If any proposal by an operator does include a new port of call that point, of course, will certainly be considered by my right hon. Friend.

Lady Tweedsmuir: Can my hon. Friend say whether these proposals include the use of Viscount aircraft, and, if so, when will they come into operation as far north as Aberdeen?

Mr. Neave: I am afraid that we have not received the proposals yet, and therefore I do not know what type of aircraft is involved.

Mr. Hoy: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that B.E.A. have already announced that the latest Viscount 800 will be in service on these routes?

Mr. Neave: I do not think that is so. We have not had a specific proposal for this particular service on the East Scottish routes.

B.O.A.C. (Jet Aircraft)

Mr. Beswick: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he proposes to permit the decision with regard to the purchase of the new jet aircraft for British Overseas Airways Corporation, which the Corporation are now discussing with a number of British constructors, to be made by the Corporation alone on the basis of their own commercial judgment.

Mr. Watkinson: As in the past, a decision will be reached by consultation between the various interests involved, namely B.O.A.C., the manufacturer and the Government Departments concerned.

Mr. Beswick: Since the Minister has admitted that he made a mistake at the end of last year in trying to apply pressure upon the Corporation to buy a particular aircraft, will he now give a quite definite assurance that the purchase of these new jet aircraft both by B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. will be made on the merits of the design specifications and the proven record of the manufacturers concerned to deliver up to those specifications and not in accordance with any Ministry of Supply idea to feed orders to manufacturers who are short of work?

Mr. Watkinson: No, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman really knows that it was quite right to investigate the possibility of multi-purpose jet aircraft. It was quite right to do that before looking into the further possibilities of turboprop and jet aircraft, and that is what has been done.

Private Flying

Mr. Beswick: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what steps he has taken within the past two years to encourage club and private flying; and when he expects to be able to reach a decision about the provision of a suitable aerodrome near London for this category of flying.

Mr. Neave: As the answer to the first part of the Question is rather long and detailed, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT. As regards the second part of the Question, it is unlikely that a decision can be reached for some months.

Mr. Beswick: If the Minister accepts the argument which was put last week that, with the decrease in the opportunity of Service flying, it is essential to develop the possibilities of private civil flying, will he see that this matter is treated as one of urgency?

Mr. Neave: My right hon. Friend does accept that argument. I think he told the hon. Gentleman last week that he was in touch with the Secretary of State for Air about the matter. I hope there will be the least possible delay.

Following is the Answer:
During the past two years landing fees for club aircraft have been waived at 37 State-controlled aerodromes, and quarterly season tickets are about to be introduced enabling private pilots to house and park their aircraft at these aerodromes at reduced rates. The upper weight limit for aircraft qualifying for certain concessions, including the two I have mentioned, is also being raised from 4,000 lb. to 4,499 lb. In addition arrangements have been made for the exemption of foreign holders of International Air Tourist Cards from landing, housing and parking fees for the first 48 hours stay at any of the Ministry's aerodromes. Grants have been given in relief of petrol duty throughout this period, and the number of flying clubs and groups receiving them has increased from 100 to 130.

Unqualified Flying Instructors

Mr. Beswick: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what action he has taken, or proposes to take, to so tighten the appropriate regulations as to prevent non-qualified flying instructors giving dual-flying instruction to ab initio pilots.

Mr. Neave: The present regulation on flying instruction prohibits unqualified instructors from giving ab initio flying


instruction for payment and from supervising pupils flying solo. The question of extending this provision to include all ab initio flying instruction is under consideration as part of a general revision of the air navigation regulations which my right hon. Friend is undertaking.

Mr. Beswick: If the Joint Parliamentary Secretary looks at this matter again he will find that the regulation does not prevent unqualified instructors from giving some instruction to an ab initio pilot. As details have been sent to his Ministry of breaches of this regulation, at any rate in the spirit if not in the letter, will he see whether something can be done about them?

Mr. Neave: The regulations are in course of redrafting, with the object that there shall be a requirement for an instructor's rating to be held for all instruction taken for the purpose of obtaining a private pilot's licence at all stages. My right hon. Friend will consider that point in the redrafting of the regulations.

Oral Answers to Questions — RAILWAYS

Modernisation Programme (Contracts)

Miss Burton: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he will give a general direction to the British Transport Commission to give special consideration, when placing contracts in connection with the modernisation programme of British Railways, to the needs of localities where there is present unemployment and unused production capacity.

Mr. Watkinson: No, Sir. The British Transport Commission must have regard to the experience of the suppliers and to the need to secure timely deliveries. Other things being equal, however, the Commission is always ready to consider placing orders in Development Areas or other places where unemployment presents a persistent problem and where suitable manufacturing facilities exist.

Miss Burton: Will the Minister see that the Government do something to give a little validity to their statement that they are prepared to help where unemployment has resulted because of their policy? Is the Minister aware that in Coventry we have several firms capable of building

diesel engines and railway carriages? Is he aware that the Daimler Company are about to quit a Government-owned factory owing to lack of orders, and that these premises would be suitable to be used in connection with the building of such engines and carriages? Does the right hon. Gentleman know that the Armstrong-Whitworth Aircraft Company will shortly have 600 workers turned off and that these people could do the work, and that sheds are available at Baginton? Will the Minister look at this matter again?

Mr. Watkinson: I will examine carefully what the hon. Lady has said, but my answer, which I gave with care, remains; that the Commission must have regard to the experience of suppliers and to the need to secure timely deliveries.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF DEFENCE

British Forces, Germany (Cost)

Mr. Wigg: asked the Minister of Defence whether he will make a statement about the contribution to be made by the German Federal Government towards the cost of British Forces in Germany.

The Minister of Defence (Mr. Duncan Sandys): I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave last week to the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough).

Mr. Wigg: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the House will be shortly asked to give a vote on account and to pass Vote A of the Army Estimates? Does he not realise that it is impossible for us to give intelligent consideration to these two matters unless we know the shape, size and cost of our forces in Germany?

Mr. Sandys: Negotiations with the German Government on this subject are not yet complete.

Mr. Wigg: The right hon. Gentleman ought not to ask the House to consider Vote A and the vote on account until we have some information on these subjects.

Mr. Sandys: I hope that the negotiations will be concluded before then, although I cannot say for certain.

Mr. Bellenger: Are these negotiations held up as the result of the discussions now going on to reduce the size of British forces in Germany?

Mr. Sandys: I do not think so.

Middle East Operations (Movements)

Mr. Wigg: asked the Minister of Defence whether he will publish a White Paper giving the movements of British naval ships, Royal Air Force aircraft, and troops from the United Kingdom to Malta and Cyprus during the periods 16th–25th October, 1956, 26th–30th October, 1956, and the movement from Malta and Cyprus to Port Said from 30th October, 1956, onwards, and the movement of French troops and military aircraft to Cyprus prior to 16th October, 1956, from 16th–30th October, 1956, and the movement of French military aircraft from Cyprus to Israel, up to and including 15th October, 1956, from 16th–25th October, 1956, and from 26th October, 1956, onwards.

Mr. Sandys: No, Sir.

Mr. Wigg: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that the reason why he says "No" is fully understood on this side of the House. Would he not, in order to clear the good name of this country, and if he will not publish a White Paper, publish the information in the OFFICIAL REPORT?

Mr. Sandys: I do not see the difference between publication in a White Paper and in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: In view of the fact that the information asked for by my hon. Friend would be of great importance in the preparation of the history of events in the Mediterranean between July and December last year and to enable the nation to form a judgment on those events, on what grounds of security or public interest does the Minister propose not to give this information?

Mr. Sandys: I am inclined to think that those events have not yet passed into the realm of history.

Mr. Wigg: On a point of order.

Mr. S. Silverman: rose—

Mr. Speaker: What was the hon. Gentleman's point of order? If there is no point of order I will call the next Question.

Mr. Wigg: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Is there a point of order?

Mr. Wigg: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the right hon. Gentleman's reply—[Interruption.]

Hon. Members: That is not a point of order.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is giving notice that he will raise the matter on the Adjournment, is he not?

Mr. Wigg: With respect, Mr. Speaker, may I be allowed to make by own submission to you? In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The House should listen to the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg). He may have a point.

Mr. Wigg: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the right hon. Gentleman's reply, I beg to give notice that I shall not only raise this matter on the Adjournment but shall seek every opportunity on Supply to prevent the Government from getting Vote A on any of these Services until I get a more satisfactory reply.

Washington Discussions (Guided Missiles)

Mr. de Freitas: asked the Minister of Defence which members of the Air Council were present at his discussions in Washington on the supply of guided missiles; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Sandys: None, Sir.

Mr. de Freitas: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if he has negotiated without being advised by the Service which will use these missiles he will run the danger of being rebuked by the Select Committee on Estimates as he was when he was at the Ministry of Supply? Will he look at this point? After all, these men will have to operate the missiles.

Mr. Sandys: Among those who attended the meetings were Aix Marshal Selway, Head of the Air Force Mission


in Washington, and Dr. Cockburn, Controller of Guided Weapons and Electronics at the Ministry of Supply.

Mr. de Freitas: But is it not a fact that the Air Council has the responsibility of organising the Service which will use these missiles?

Mr. Sandys: As I explained in my earlier statement, the proposals which were made during the course of these discussions are now being considered by the two Governments. In the course of the review of these proposals by Her Majesty's Government, the Air Council is playing a major part.

Mr. G. Brown: asked the Minister of Defence when he expects to be able to announce the nature of the agreement concluded with the United States Government for the supply of missiles for British forces.

Mr. Sandys: I cannot at present add to my statement of 6th February.

Mr. Brown: Then something else will be in the White Paper. Is not the right hon. Gentleman prepared to say that this at least will be in the White Paper?

Mr. Sandys: There are no limits to what may be in the White Paper.

Mr. Brown: These cuts are beyond that kind of answer. This is something that will affect our ability to defend ourselves and the nature of the forces we are to pay for. Has the Minister made any agreement; or has he, in fact, come back empty-handed on this subject?

Mr. Sandys: I am hopeful that some statement may be made before the publication of the White Paper.

Civil Defence

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Minister of Defence, in view of increasing reliance on nuclear fission weapons for the purpose of offence and retaliation in the eventuality of war, what further revision of civil defence is being undertaken; and what directives or advice he has caused to be conveyed to the Civil Defence organisation arising from his defence plans.

Mr. Sandys: I hope to deal with these matters in the forthcoming White Paper on Defence.

Mr. Sorensen: Will all the points which I put in my Question be dealt with by the Minister?

Mr. Sandys: The White Paper is not yet written. I have expressed hopes that they may be dealt with.

Operational Units (Working Week)

Mr. de Freitas: asked the Minister of Defence to what extent a five-day week is worked at operational units in the Armed Services.

Mr. Sandys: The state of operational readiness varies with the nature of the unit, its location and the current international situation.

Mr. de Freitas: While that may well be true, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the disclosure made by the Secretary of State for Air that, despite the enormous expenditure on Fighter Command, operational fighter stations work only a five-day week?

Mr. Sandys: I think that the hon. hon. Gentleman misunderstood my right hon. Friend's statement.

Mr. de Freitas: If I misunderstood him my misunderstanding was shared by many hon. Members.

Mr. Sandys: I have no doubt that even more understood him correctly.

Mr. Osborne: Will my right hon. Friend give warning to all possible enemies of this country that it would be a cad's trick to attack us at weekends when we are neither prepared to work nor to fight?

British Forces, Europe

Mr. G. Brown: asked the Minister of Defence if he will make a statement about the proposals for the reduction of the British forces on the Continent which have been presented to the Council of Western European Union.

Sir W. Anstruther-Gray: asked the Minister of Defence to what extent he intends to reduce the British forces in Germany.

Mr. Sandys: A statement will be made shortly.

Sir W. Anstruther-Gray: Will my right hon. Friend make sure that this statement is made to the House rather than to the Press?

Mr. Sandys: That would be the proper and normal place to make it.

Surplus Stores (Reports)

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Minister of Defence whether, in view of the Reports by the Select Committee on Estimates and the Public Accounts Committee disclosing excessive purchase of stores and equipment for military purposes and consequent waste, he will take disciplinary action against the officials responsible.

Mr. Sandys: While accepting the general conclusions of the Select Committee, I am not satisfied that disciplinary action would be justified.

Mr. Shinwell: Will not the right hon. Gentleman agree that a very shocking state of affairs has been disclosed in these two Reports? Surely, if any person employed in a private undertaking were responsible for such acts he would be dealt with—why should these people escape?

Mr. Sandys: I am not prepared in a general way to say that disciplinary action is justified, but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War has already answered questions on this subject and made it quite clear that he is not satisfied with the position and is looking into the matter with a view to seeing what action is required.

Mr. Nabarro: Who bought the blanco?

Civilian Labour

Mr. Allaun: asked the Minister of Defence (1) if he will state the nature of his reply to the letter from the Trades Union Congress asking him to save men and money by employing civilians in place of soldiers and airmen wherever possible and asking why, despite the advice of investigating committees in favour of civilian labour, substantial changes have not yet been made;
(2) if he will agree to the full implementation of the proposals of the Wolfenden Committee Report as regards civilianisation in the Armed Forces.

Mr. Sandys: I would refer the hon. Member to the answers given by me on

6th February and by the Secretary of State for War on 12th February.

Mr. Allaun: Will the Minister tell the House why there has been a delay of 3½ years since the recommendations were first put to the Government by the T.U.C.? Would they not save 40,000 men? Is the Minister aware that in the past few days the Admiralty has acted in the opposite direction by turning over to naval ratings the sending of telegrams previously done by civilians, mainly girls, in shore establishments?

Mr. Sandys: I will study the hon. Member's question.

Anglo-French Discussions

Mr. G. Brown: asked the Minister of Defence if he will make a statement about the recent discussions with the French Defence Minister, M. Maurice Bourges-Maunoury.

Mr. Sandys: At our meeting here on 14th February the French Minister of Defence put forward certain proposals for closer collaboration on defence between Britain and France within the framework of the Western European Union, with particular reference to research and production. These proposals are now being examined, with a view to a further meeting between us in due course.

Mr. Brown: Does the Minister accept the statement made by the French Minister when he returned that France is ahead of Britain in tanks, anti-tank missiles, support aircraft and electrical equipment, and asks nothing better than to help her British allies in these matters? Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that as a fair statement of the position discovered at these talks?

Mr. Sandys: I do not think that it would contribute to closer Anglo-French understanding for me to comment on that statement.

Mr. Shinwell: In the recent discussions with the French Defence Minister, did the right hon. Gentleman ascertain the views of the French Defence Minister on the appointment of General Speidel, which is now the subject of very acute controversy in the French Chamber?

Mr. Sandys: The subject was not mentioned.

Oral Answers to Questions — AIRCRAFT FACTORY, BLACKPOOL (MINISTER'S STATEMENT)

Miss Burton: asked the Prime Minister whether the statement made by the Minister of Supply on 8th February last to a delegation from the Blackpool Town Council, that he would do his best to find alternative work for the factory of Hawker Aircraft, Blackpool, Limited, so that the hardship caused by the decline in Service orders for military aircraft might be mitigated, represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

The Secretary of State to the Home Department and Lord Privy Seal (Mr. R. A. Butler): I have been asked to reply. The statement made by my right hon. Friend on 8th February has my right hon. Friend's full approval.

Miss Burton: While being very glad at last to get that on the record, might I ask the Lord Privy Seal if he is aware that in Coventry the Armstrong-Whitworth Aircraft Company during the next few months is to have 600 workers declared redundant because of the cuts in defence orders? Is he aware that, apart from that, we now have more than 3,000 out of work, an increase of 500 in the past month? Will he say if some attention could be given to directing work to Coventry?

Mr. Butler: The Minister of Supply is responsible for procuring supplies for the Armed Forces, and the chances of finding work are somewhat limited by the requirements of the Services. I thought perhaps the hon. Lady would refer to Coventry following this Question. I will discuss the matter with my right hon. Friend.

Mr. G. Brown: As the statement made by the Minister of Supply to the town council of Blackpool appears to be in flat contradiction to the statement he made in this House a fortnight ago on the question of finding alternative work, will the Lord Privy Seal also discuss with his right hon. Friend this contradiction in the statements made by the Minister of Supply inside and outside this House and try to co-ordinate them or try to get the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to do so?

Mr. Butler: I am quite satisfied that the statement made about the Blackpool factory in response to the deputation represents the policy of the Government and is endorsed by the Prime Minister.

Sir R. Robinson: Will not my right hon. Friend agree that, whatever the implications of the Question and the supplementary questions, it, is the wish of the Government to secure full employment in the engineering industry, be it in Blackpool or in Coventry? With that in mind, does he agree that the Minister of Supply is right in trying to secure that the whole resources of the Government are behind efforts to try to continue work in this factory?

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir, and that is why my right hon. Friend made the reply he did.

Mr. G. Brown: In view of the fact that the Minister of Supply said the exact opposite in this House, how is the House to know when he is speaking for the Prime Minister and when he is not?

Mr. Butler: I have just assured the House that the statement made on the question of this factory has the full approval of my right hon. Friend and the Government.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMIGRATION

Mr. Dodds: asked the Prime Minister if he will set up a committee to inquire into the reasons for the increasing desire of our young people to emigrate with a view to introducing policies designed to retain in this country these people who are so vital for our survival in the competitive age.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I have been asked to reply.
My right hon. Friend is aware of this problem but is glad that the hon. Member realises the importance of competition in an expanding society, as opposed to the dogmas of Socialism and restriction.

Mr. Dodds: Is it not a fact that today more people are wanting to leave this country than for many years past owing to the uttter and continuing failure of Government policy? Is it not obvious to the right hon. Gentleman and his hon.


Friends that the results of recent by-elections give a clear notice to this Government to quit? In the best interests of this country, will not the Government have a General Election as soon as possible before too many migrate from this country?

Mr. Butler: In relation to the recent by-election, I saw that the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) suggested that there should be a national day of mourning. I think that shows a very good spirit on his part. In regard to the general question, I am perfectly certain that there would be a much greater rush to emigrate if there were a Labour Government in this country.

Mr. Gaitskell: In considering this prolem, may we not all take encouragement from the defeat of the Government in Committee this morning on the Rent Bill? Will not the right hon. Gentleman give further encouragement to those who are thinking of migrating and induce them to stay at home by saying that the Government will now withdraw the Rent Bill?

Mr. Butler: No, Sir. The Government regard the Rent Bill as an essential part of their programme and have no intention of withdrawing it.

Lady Tweedsmuir: Is it not a fact that for many years Canada has wanted a higher proportion of British immigrants? Is not this emigration of great value to both Britain and the Commonwealth, and will my right hon. Friend undertake, on the contrary, to do everything he can to facilitate emigration to Canada?

DOCTORS' AND DENTISTS' REMUNERATION (ROYAL COMMISSION)

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement on the remuneration of doctors and dentists in the National Health Service and in the employment of local authorities.
The House will know that a claim has been submitted for an increase of 24 per cent, in the remuneration of all doctors in the National Health Service. The extra cost to the country would be about £20 million a year. In present circumstances, the Government do not feel able to admit

this claim, and representatives of the profession have been so informed.
This does not mean that the Governmnet have reached any conclusion as to the merits of the claim. Indeed, they have decided that the time is opportune for a full review of medical remuneration through an independent inquiry which would take into account the position of the medical profession in relation to other professional classes in the community, and would suggest how the matter could be kept under review.
I have accordingly recommended to the Queen, and Her Majesty has been graciously pleased to approve, that a Royal Commission should be appointed for this purpose.
Within the last few days a claim, similar to that of the doctors, has been received on behalf of the dental profession, and the dental profession will be included in the review to be conducted by the Royal Commission. The question whether the remuneration of doctors and dentists employed by local authorities should be included in the terms of reference is under consideration.
I will announce at a later date the names of the chairman and members of the Royal Commission, together with the terms of reference.

Mr. Gaitskell: Would the Prime Minister clarify the position? How long does he expect it will be before the Royal Commission reports? Is it to be in the nature of an arbitration tribunal which is to pronounce upon the claim? If so, are we to understand that the Government bind themselves in advance to accept whatever recommendations are made by the Royal Commission? Will the terms of reference include specialists as well as general practitioners? Finally, will it be within the terms of reference of the Commission and within its powers to recommend back-dating the award, if there is an award?

The Prime Minister: It will, of course, be in the power of the Royal Commission to recommend that any award or any proposal should be made retrospective, but we must await the recommendations of the Royal Commission on that point. The terms of reference will include the specialists.
I believe that the character of the Royal Commission will be best set out in detail when I am able to present both the names of the members and the precise terms of reference, but I think it is generally agreed that it would be a good thing if the relation of this profession with other professions could be established and if a satisfactory system could be laid down by which future reviews could be carried out from time to time. I think it would be to everybody's benefit if that resulted from the Royal Commission?

Sir I. Fraser: While welcoming this proposal, may I ask whether the remuneration of medical auxiliaries, such as physiotherapists, radiographers and others who work so closely with the medical and dental profession, could be included in the Commission's considerations?

The Prime Minister: I should prefer not to answer that today, but to take it into account when the terms of reference are settled.

Sir I. Fraser: Thank you.

Mr. H. Morrison: Does not the Prime Minister think that this is a very doubtful way of seeking to settle wages, salaries and remuneration? Does it not take negotiation, from the taxpayer's point of view, out of the hands of Ministers who are responsible to the House and put it in the hands of an outside body? Is it not unlikely to lead to co-ordinated responsible decisions? Does the Prime Minister recall—I admit that this happened under the Labour Government—that the Spens Committee, dealing with somewhat similar circumstances, landed the country into an expenditure and into repercussions which were very embarrassing?

The Prime Minister: This is a very difficult problem, but I feel that the work of the Royal Commission on the Civil Service, which is not quite similar but is somewhat parallel, has been an advantage. Again, it was a question in which Ministers were finally responsible, as they will be in this matter, but I think that it has been an advantage in the general life of the Civil Service. If some equally good results followed from this Royal Commission, I think it would be generally acceptable.

Mr. Nabarro: While wishing warmly to congratulate my right hon. Friend, may I ask him to make it perfectly clear, in framing the terms of reference for the Royal Commission, that a primary purpose should be to endeavour to eliminate all the legal and other uncertainties which have arisen during the last few years from the Spens Report and the Danckwerts Award made under it, all of which are responsible for the present difficult position with the doctors?

The Prime Minister: One of the purposes of the Royal Commission will be to clear up this situation and to lay down a system which, through the years, will be more workable and more acceptable.

Dr. Summerskill: As this is virtually a repudiation of the recommendations of the Spens Report, could the Prime Minister say what was the reaction of the professional organisations towards this new suggestion?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. The discussions between the representatives of the profession and the Minister of Health are another matter. Today, I have simply preferred to confine myself to stating that I have recommended the appointment of the Commission, that Her Majesty has been pleased to accept the recommendation and that the terms of reference and the membership will be announced. I think that all the detailed questions had better be put to the Minister responsible.

PETROL AND OIL SUPPLIES

The Paymaster-General (Mr. Reginald Maudling): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I should like to make a statement on the oil situation.
The measures taken to deal with the severe reduction in petrol and oil supplies have led to an improvement compared with the position in the first weeks of the emergency. It is hoped that this improvement will continue, but this depends upon the restoration of the normal channels of supply. Meanwhile, I would like to express on behalf of the Government our appreciation of the efforts made by the United States to help Europe during the present emergency.
The Government have again reviewed the restrictions now in force, with the following results. It remains the Govern-


ment's intention to remove petrol rationing as soon as practicable, but this depends on the assurance of an adequate and regular flow of supplies and the possession of a working stock sufficient to ensure proper distribution. The Government think it prudent to proceed on the assumption that a further rationing period will be necessary and to make arrangements accordingly—although these preparations and the issue of new coupons will not prevent an earlier end to rationing should this prove possible. Although a final decision will not be taken until nearer the time, I can say now that we should at least be able to maintain the ration at its present level.
The Government must continue to conserve stocks against the end of rationing, but we appreciate that car owners would like to use their cars to a greater extent at Easter. As the holiday falls just after the end of the current rationing period, arrangements will be made for any coupons unused in the current period to be valid up to the end of April in addition to the coupons for the new period. This will also apply to coupons held by operators of goods and public service vehicles.
Supplies of fuel oil have improved and the review indicates that restrictions can be limited to the present level throughout April. The restrictions on gas/diesel oil can now be lightened. As from 1st April next the cuts will be reduced to 10 per cent. in the case of industry and 25 per cent. for non-industrial central heating. The restriction of 10 per cent. on agricultural and fishing supplies will be abolished from the same date. Despite these changes the average saving on gas diesel will still be of the order of 15 per cent.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation is also making preparations for a further rationing period from 8th April. Details will be made public tomorrow, but he has asked me to say that allowance will be made for seasonal changes in normal consumption, particularly in the case of coaches whose allocation will be increased to 75 per cent. of their normal consumption for the period.

Mr. Robens: This is a long statement, and we shall want to look at it and,

perhaps, ask questions later of the Minister. Meanwhile, I should like to ask one or two questions.
The right hon. Gentleman said that the improvement depended upon the restoration of the normal channels of supply. Is he now able to tell the House and the country just what estimation the Government have made as to when tankers will begin to come through the Suez Canal? Will he tell us when, if the Canal is cleared within a comparatively short time, negotiations will begin about British tankers going through the Canal, or whether arrangements have already been made so that as soon as the Canal is cleared British tankers can go through it without any difficulty?
We should also like to know the position about American supplies. The general information is that there is available in the United States sufficient oil, if it is permitted to be produced in Texas. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman could tell us what effect the talks that have recently been held with the Americans have had in getting increased production from the Texas oilfields which would enable Europe to move out of petrol rationing very quickly?
While we very much welcome the decision to enable coupons unused at the end of the rationing period to be used over Easter, is he not able to say something to the general public about petrol allocations for the summer? It is at this time of year that the public are making preparations for their holidays. Coach proprietors and those responsible for carrying the public have also their arrangements to make. Bookings, which affect not only the motor coach people but also hotels and seaside resorts, have to be made well in advance. Therefore, it will not do to leave it too late to make an announcement about the allocation of supplies for the summer holiday period. When will the right hon. Gentleman be able to tell us about those things?

Mr. Maudling: The improvements to which I have referred are not based on any assumptions about the restoration of normal supplies through the Canal, or through the Iraq pipeline. I think that it would be quite wrong, at this stage, to make a firm prediction about what will happen, and the exact date at which it will happen, with regard to supplies from


that source. The important thing in any rationing scheme is not to hold out prospects which one cannot be absolutely certain of maintaining in practice. So tar as the Texas supply is concerned, I think that the recent announcement underlines once again that a very great deal of help is being given by our friends in America to meet the difficulties of Europe.

Sir I. Fraser: Would my right hon. Friend clarify his remark about allocations for coaches? I understood him to say that they were to get 75 per cent. Is that 75 per cent. of what they used last year, or 75 per cent. of their present ration? Would he bear in mind that the whole holiday and seaside business depends very much upon generous allocations for coaches?

Mr. Maudling: I am very glad to make that point clear, because it is very important. The 75 per cent. is 75 per cent. of their normal consumption in those particular months.

Mr. Ernest Davies: While I am sure that the increase of 75 per cent. in holiday coach allocations is welcomed, may I ask the Minister to give an undertaking that the essential needs of public service transport will not be subordinated to the needs of holiday coach traffic? The public service vehicle operators have done a wonderful job during this difficult period. Would he not consider restoring the 10 per cent. cut which they have suffered?

Mr. Maudling: I understand that, on the whole, the public service vehicle operators are receiving 95 per cent. of their normal allocation. They are making excellent efforts and, I feel, are meeting the requirements of their customers very well.

Mr. Nabarro: The latter part of my right hon. Friend's statement responded to my Question No. 9 on the Order Paper. Would he confirm that the increased allocation of motor fuel for these coaches, in conjunction with the additional railway services to be run by the British Transport Commission, will, in total, be adequate to move the many millions of industrial workers, notably those from the Midlands, to seaside and other resorts for their annual holidays?

Mr. Maudling: I hope that that will be so.

Mr. Woodburn: Will the Minister consider making a special allocation of petrol in those parts of the country where there is no rail transport, so that hotels in the Highlands and outlying areas may be able to book their visitors in the secure knowledge that there will be petrol to transport the visitors from the nearest railhead?

Mr. Maudling: This is a very difficult problem, particularly in the Highlands, of which my noble Friend is well aware. At the moment, it is difficult to see how we can find any satisfactory solution to the problem other than by the ending of rationing, which remains our primary objective.

Mr. John MacLeod: Is not my right hon. Friend aware that a day or two ago a plan was sent to him to deal with this problem by way of a form of travellers' cheques, and that that plan could easily work? The effect of rationing is very serious in the north-west Highlands. There they would welcome an increase in allocations for coaches, but there are many roads along which coaches cannot go at all, and hotels and other places count very largely on motorists.

Mr. Maudling: My noble Friend is examining that scheme, and will be very glad to examine any other suggestion, but I must warn the House that it is very difficult to provide for these particular problems otherwise than by abandoning rationing altogether.

Mr. Grimond: Is it only the restrictions on diesel oil for fishing and agriculture that have been removed, or is it all restrictions? When the right hon. Gentleman is considering the Highlands and Islands, will he bear in mind that, apart from the tourist traffic, there are many districts in which there is virtually no public transport at all, and in which employment of every kind depends on oil or petrol? Can he be as generous as possible to those places?

Mr. Maudling: So far as the Highlands and Islands are concerned, the regional petroleum officers are empowered to give special allocations to avoid hardship or special disturbance to production.
As to gas diesel oil, the only restrictions completely abolished are those on agricultural and fishing supplies, but the


cuts in industrial consumption and non-industrial central heating have both been reduced in scope.

Sir I. Orr-Ewing: While welcoming the fact that there is now some hope of coach operators getting a greater allowance of fuel, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he will remember that nothing could be more deplorable than that those living in rural areas should see coach-loads of holiday-makers roaring through their districts when they themselves have not any transport? Is he aware that, in spite of the fact that a 95 per cent. allowance was made to public service vehicle operators, it is the rural areas, with their longer runs, which have suffered most?

Mr. Maudling: I quite appreciate the difficulties of the rural areas, but I think that some of them might be sorry if they did not see the coaches roaring into their areas.

Mr. Hale: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House what proposals he has had from the petrol distributors to limit the increase granted to them on account of the shortage, and what statement he intends to make to the House about the very heavy tax which he announced was to be put on purely as a rationing measure, and which now appears wholly unnecessary?

Mr. Maudling: I do not quite understand the point of the hon. Member's question. Rationing, as I have explained, is still continuing.

Mr. Osborne: Does my right hon. Friend's statement mean that the organisers of agricultural shows and gymkhanas—who have to make their preparations months ahead and require petrol for the support of such events—can go on with their schemes with confidence?

Mr. Maudling: I think that we have already announced that applications from the organisers of those events will be treated on their merits

Mr. Lee: Does the Minister agree that one of the vital things in this situation is the supply of fuel oil to industry? Is he now able to say that supply is, in fact, catching up with demand and, therefore, our stocks are not being reduced? Can he, further, say whether the good news from America means that we are to get fuel oil from America as distinct from petrol?

Mr. Maudling: The important thing is that we can maintain present fuel oil supplies and that we will not have to impose further restrictions during March and April; but it will be very important to build up fuel oil stocks between now and next winter. That will take a lot of doing.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Is my right hon. Friend aware that what appears from his statement is not so much that there is a shortage of oil in this country but a passionate desire on the part of civil servants to maintain a pernickety rationing scheme? Will he, as soon as possible, abolish the whole rationing system and allow the transient effects of this crisis to be borne upon the price structure?

Mr. Maudling: If my noble Friend believes that either Ministers or civil servants enjoy rationing, he ought to think again.

Mr. Hayman: May I ask the Minister to reconsider the question of holding over coupons from the present rationing period beyond 30th April, because so much of the holiday traffic and other business in the south-west of England, particularly Cornwall, depends upon people coming in in their own cars?

Mr. Maudling: That is a very interesting point. The trouble is that, as the future supply situation is still rather uncertain, it is very difficult for my noble Friend to allow a bulk of unspent coupons to be carried on for a long period. He thought that to allow them to be carried on to the end of April, over Easter, was about as much as it was safe to do.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS

Dentists (Shortage)

Mr. Harold Steward: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 8th March, I shall call attention to the necessity for taking measures to remedy the shortage of dentists, and move a Resolution.

Refugees

Mr. Maurice Orbach: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 8th March, I shall call attention to the problem of the refugees, and move a Resolution.

Family Responsibility

Mr. Gresham Cooke: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 8th March, I shall call attention to the need for a sense of family responsibility rather than complete reliance on the State, and move a Resolution.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Proceedings on Government Business exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. R. A. Butler.]

CHILDREN AND YOUNG PERSONS (REGISTERED CLUBS)

3.54 p.m.

Mr. Cyril Black: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the law in England and Wales in respect of the supply of intoxicating liquor to children and young persons in registered clubs and to prohibit their entry into, and their employment in, such clubs during permitted hours.
The purpose of the short Bill which I am seeking leave to introduce and which, if carried into law, will be called the Children and Young Persons (Registered Clubs) Act, 1957, can be explained very shortly.
For more than thirty years, it has been illegal for publicans to sell intoxicating liquor to persons under 18 or to allow persons under 14 to be in their bars. These provisions became the law as long ago as 1923 and were confirmed by Parliament as recently as 1953. In 1949, it was made illegal for publicans to employ persons under 18 in their bars. As far as I am aware, these provisions have not been objected to by the licensed trade, and I am confident that they carry the support of a vast majority of hon. Members of this House and of the general public.
Until recently, there were two exceptions to these general provisions, in that they did not apply in the case of occasional licences or in the case of registered clubs. Almost exactly a year ago, the House gave unopposed leave to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Royle) to introduce a Bill to rectify the former of these omissions, and his Bill, in due course, became law under the title of the Occasional Licences and Young Persons Act, 1956.
The Bill I am asking leave to introduce deals with the latter of these omissions and contains three main provisions, as follows. First, no person under 14 years of age shall be allowed to be in the bar of a registered club during the permitted hours. Secondly, no person under 18 years of age shall knowingly be allowed to consume intoxicating liquor in any bar on the premises of a registered club. Thirdly, no person under 18 years of age shall be permitted to be employed in a bar of a registered club at a time when


the bar is open for the supply or consumption of intoxicating liquor.
It will, perhaps, come as a surprise to some hon. Members of the House to learn that it is necessary for a Bill to be introduced to achieve these objects. It is somewhat alarming to realise that, as the law stands at present, if a young child ordered, and was served with, a double whisky at the bar of a registered club, no offence would be committed and no action could be taken.
I do not wish to detain the House unduly, but I must draw attention, in support of the need for the Bill, to the very serious increase in drunkenness among young people which has taken place in recent years. The report entitled, "Social Problems of Post-War Youth, 1946–54", contains these challenging statements:
For youths aged 14 to 16 the incidence of drink offences fell by nearly 50 per cent. between 1946 and 1949; but it increased fivefold between 1949 and 1954. It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that easy money, the increasingly bad example of immediate elders, the difficulties of licensees, and the laxity of management of registered clubs have brought about this staggering reversal of trend.
An analysis carried out by the Economic Research Council in respect of the problem for the years 1953 to 1955 reveals that
While offences of drunkenness among persons aged 21 and over fell by just over 1 per cent. between 1953 and 1955, offences among persons aged under 21 rose by 43 per cent. in those two years.
A few days ago, the Chairman of Liverpool Licensing Committee was reported as expressing great alarm that

in 1956 Liverpool had the highest number of convictions for drunkenness for thirty years. There were 4,187 convictions, representing an increase of more than 1,000 over the previous two years. The chairman continued:
The most disturbing feature of the increase was the fact that 626 of the convictions last year were of people under 20 years of age, 88 of them being under 18.
He concluded:
I do not wish it to be assumed that these young people necessarily obtained the liquor in public houses.
My Bill would seek only to employ the same safeguards in the case of registered clubs that have been applied in public houses for many years. I have tried to state my case clearly and without exaggeration and I hope that the House will see fit to give me leave to introduce the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Black, Mr. Bowen, Mr. Norman Cole, Mr. Gibson, Mr. Glenvil Hall, Dr. Hastings, Mr. Horace Holmes, Mr. McGhee, Sir Frank Medlicott, Mr. Goronwy Roberts, Mr. Royle and Mr. Simmons.

CHILDREN AND YOUNG PERSONS (REGISTERED CLUBS)

Bill to amend the law in England and Wales in respect of the supply of intoxicating liquor to children and young persons in registered clubs and to prohibit their entry into, and their employment in, such clubs during permitted hours, presented accordingly and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 1st March, and to be printed. [Bill 57.]

Orders of the Day — RATING AND VALUATION BILL

Considered in Committee [Progress, 14th February.]

[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Clause 1.—(RATEABLE VALUE OF SHOPS, OFFICES, ETC., FOR PURPOSES OF EXISTING VALUATION LISTS.)

Question again proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

4.3 p.m.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: I am particularly glad to have caught your eye at this moment, Sir Charles, because I hope during my observations to make a few points which I would have made in support of an Amendment which appeared in my name on the Notice Paper but which was not selected and, therefore, as the Committee will appreciate, can only be discussed on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
Before I come to that point, which deals with the concession given to those who appealed against the new valuations under the 1955 Act, may I also, like so many of my hon. Friends, register my protest against this mischievous Bill and, in particular, this mischievous Clause? As the Committee knows, the action of the Minister of Housing and Local Government in seeking to reduce the rating charges of shopkeepers and others at the expense of householders is a most retrograde step.
The Minister is not, as he claims, removing an injustice. In our submission, he is creating an intolerable injustice to all classes of ordinary householders who are paying rates throughout the country. Furthermore, he is taking a step which is condemned by every local government authority and, in particular, by the associations who represent the municipal corporations and other local government authorities.
I hope that in the course of time the Minister will realise the very unfortunate impression which he has been creating since his appointment to his present office—

Sir Leslie Plummer: Before that.

Mr. Fletcher: Long before that—in the way that he is handling local authorities.
I mentioned it in that way, if my hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer) will allow me to say so, for this reason. There was a time when I used to know the Minister as a member of the London County Council, on which we both served for a long time, and when the Minister had the interests of local government at heart. When he left that sphere, his interest in the welfare of local government seemed to me to lapse, but now that he has been appointed Minister of Housing and Local Government one might have been excused for thinking that he would again show some interest in, and concern for, the welfare of local government.
The Minister is setting up for himself a very unenviable reputation. It cannot be a good augury for his tenure of office that he sponsors a Bill which flies in the face of all the representations that have been made to him by local authorities throughout the country. Apart from the injustice which the Clause creates, we condemn the Minister for sponsoring the Clause, because it indicates a most unfortunate attitude on his part of following a course which shows a total lack of sympathy towards the interests of local authorities.
In speaking on the Bill, other hon. Members have indicated the effect which the Clause will have on their boroughs. I do not want to compete with any of my hon. Friends, but I should be remiss in my duty if I did not point out that in the case of the Borough of Islington alone the effect of the Minister's proposals in the Clause is to reduce the rateable value of the borough by no less than £250,000, all of which, of course, will fall to be paid by householders in the borough.
I turn now to one specific point which has not yet been raised in this series of debates. Although I am not very optimistic, I hope that I can have the Minister's attention and sympathy, because, although he seems to me to have shown a most uncharitable attitude so far in resisting all the Amendments that have been put down, this is one which, although I am not in a position formally to move it, is nevertheless worthy of his


serious consideration. If, therefore, I can shortly explain it and secure the right hon. Gentleman's support for it, it will enable him to redeem his reputation somewhat—though only, I fear, to a limited extent—in the eyes of local government authorities; and he will, of course, have opportunities of introducing the appropriate Amendment at a later stage of the Bill.

The Chairman: I think that probably the hon. Member will agree that that is not the way in which he should proceed. Since the Amendment was not selected we cannot now discuss it.

Mr. Fletcher: I was not proposing to discuss the Amendment, Sir Charles.

The Chairman: I thought that the hon. Member proposed discussing it.

Mr. Fletcher: What I was hoping to do was to explain why, in my view, the Clause would be improved if it were in a different form. I was proposing to indicate that one of my reasons for my opposition to the Clause is that it is at the moment in a particular form. With great respect, Sir Charles, I would suggest that I should be in order if I were to indicate its defects and, naturally, in explaining its defects, if I were to indicate, not at length, how they could be improved.

The Chairman: That sounds simple, but that would make the selection of Amendments a useless proceeding. If we were to discuss Amendments which have not been selected there would be no point in having selection of Amendments.

Mr. Fletcher: I do not, of course, want to argue, Sir Charles, but, with great resepct, I am sure that it is within your recollection that on a number of occasions in Committee Amendments which had not been selected have been discussed in general on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Chairman: Certainly not. That is the whole point.

Mr. G. R. Mitchison (Kettering): Apart, Sir Charles, from any question of an Amendment's having been selected or not, would my hon. Friend be in order in explaining that the concession given by the Clause to certain classes of ratepayers

ought to be conditional rather than unconditional, and in indicating, of course in a summary way, what condition there ought to be and the reasons for it?

The Chairman: Yes, but the rule, as stated by Erskine May, is that on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill" the debate must be confined to the Clause as it then is.

Mr. Fletcher: I am obliged, Sir Charles. I am quite convinced that I can explain the matter and say what I want to say within the terms of order and without contravening your Ruling. It may, unfortunately, take a little longer, but I cannot help that.
It becomes necessary to consider the precise effect of the Clause as it stands unamended. Its simple effect is to reduce the rateable value of shops, offices, etc., as they stand at present by 20 per cent. In subsection (6) there is a reference to the Rating and Valuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1955. That Act, which will continue to apply, provides that if an owner of a hereditament has entered an appeal against the valuation under the provisions of that Act, then pending the hearing of the appeal and its determination he is given the concession of not having to pay the rates on the increased assessment under that Act until the appeal has been determined. In other words, the maximum that can be collected from him by the local authority is the amount of rates which would have been recoverable on the hereditament in question for the year previous to that in which the new valuation came into force.
4.15 p.m.
The result of that concession is that a great deal of the rate revenue is outstanding and local authorities are very considerably embarrassed, in the calculations that they have to make, by being short of rate revenue which they would be entitled to if the appeals had been heard and been unsuccessful. For example, in the City of Birmingham, the total amount which, by virtue of the Act of 1955, has been retained by various shopkeepers and others is as much as £484,000. In Manchester, it is £600,000. In Reading, it is £650,000 and in Southampton £20,000. I have taken at random those examples from those supplied to me by the Association of Municipal Corporations.
The striking point of it is that in practically every case of the amount which is retained under the Act of 1955 about 80 per cent. or more is retained by shopkeepers and others who will benefit by this Clause of the Bill.

Mr. W. R. Williams: In addition to that loss of £600,000, which my hon. Friend has mentioned, there are in Manchester 5,000 appellants, and the delay is likely to be between two and three years, possibly more. Therefore, this loss of revenue will be not for twelve months but for two, three or four years, perhaps.

Mr. Fletcher: I am very much obliged to my hon. Friend.
The problem that we are hoping to cure is a continuous one. It does not arise in this current year only, or next year. As the Minister knows, there has been an overwhelming spate of appeals against the assessments. Indeed, the Minister has claimed that that is one of his justifications for bringing forward this Measure. He has said that one reason why he wants to give a flat 20 per cent. rebate to the owners of shops and offices is that so many of them have entered appeals, thereby indicating their discontent.
As the law stands at present, all those people who have entered appeals have not had to pay any additional rate. They have been able to rely on the Act of 1955 and, if they have entered appeals, they have not had to pay any more rates than they paid a couple of years ago. Owing to the large number of appeals pending, it will take two or three years, as my hon. Friend the Member for Openshaw (Mr. W. R. Williams) said, before they are all determined. That throws the finances of local authorities into chaos.
It is for these reasons that the Association of Municipal Corporations and others have suggested to the Minister that his proposal to give those ratepayers a rebate of 20 per cent. should be accompanied by cancellation of the concession in the Act of 1955, because if the Bill becomes law they will get a 20 per cent. reduction in their rates, anyhow. Moreover, in most cases, of course, that reduction will more than equal any reduction of assessment an appellant could hope to obtain by prosecuting his appeal.
But even if it turned out that appellants were successful and they were relieved to the extent of 20 per cent., or even if, in the final result of an appeal, they were entitled to some relief, that would be set aside against the rates they had previously paid or, should there be anything due to them by way of relief, they themselves in turn could set it off against any future instalments of rates.
This may seem a technical point, but it is of great importance to those who have to administer the finances of local authorities. It is another indication of how the Minister, if he wishes to enjoy a period of good will and co-operation with the local authorities—which we on these benches wish to foster and which, I should hope, would also be the Minister's ambition—this is the way in which he might be able to make some contribution towards it.
I conclude, as I began, by saying that whatever reliefs of this minor kind the Minister may be persuaded to concede before the Bill becomes law, we on these benches think that Clause 1 is thoroughly bad, because it produces great injustice to householders all over the country and great hardship to local authorities.

Mr. Harold Gurden: In case, Sir Charles, you should query whether or not I am in order in raising the matter that I am about to mention, I should like to say that the point arose when I spoke in Committee last week on the first Amendment on the Notice Paper that day. It was agreed then that I was in order in raising the matter. I therefore mention again the question of sewage disposal works operated by joint boards. Through no fault of mine, and because of circumstances out of my control, an Amendment on the subject was not tabled on Clause 1. The matter perhaps could have been covered by some of the Amendments that were tabled but, unfortunately for joint disposal boards, those were not accepted.
The principle of derating seems now to have been accepted and confirmed by the Bill. As such, I have no objection to it but it is a complete puzzle to me—and I hope that the Minister will explain it—why joint sewage disposal boards have not been included in these derating provisions. As I have said before, it would be far more satisfactory if we had an indication from my right hon. Friend


that these works could be deratéd in conjunction with industrial derating and thereby give further relief. I must not pursue that subject further, otherwise I shall be out of order.
These boards operate works, which can be likened to industrial works, to dispose of the sewage of a number of local authorities in an area. In the case of the Colne Valley Sewage Disposal Board, the works are at Rickmansworth and they dispose of the effluent of 13 local authorities. It so happens that because these works are situated in Rickmansworth the whole of the rates payable on them go to that local authority and are precepted from all other 12 local authorities from which the effluent is drawn, covering an area of about 150 square miles, mainly in Hertfordshire, though there is one local authority in Bedfordshire which is also involved.
This problem has become more acute because of the 1956 revaluation and the Colne Valley Board's rates, paid to Rickmansworth, have gone up from £9,500 to £42,000, which, I am told, is equal to a rise of 342 per cent. That has made the position far more acute and there is greater need now for derating, which I certainly think should have been provided for in this Clause. The remaining 12 local authorities are, therefore, having to pay the £42,000 while Rickmansworth has not only its sewage disposed of free of charge but is making a profit by reason of the fact that the works happen to be situated within its area.
I used another example when I spoke last time in Committee, that of the Tame and Rea Sewage Disposal Board which disposes of the sewage of eight local authorities. In the main, the sewage is sent to Sutton Coldfield, an adjoining authority, and most of it is disposed of there. Sutton Coldfield receives £34,000. None of that sum is reduced by net annual value, because there is no such thing. The authorities have to pay rates on the full annual value of the works and Sutton Coldfield can be charged only £18,800, precepted by the Board on the local authority for the disposal of its own sewage. Therefore, Sutton Coldfield is making a profit on it.

The Temporary Chairman (Dr. Horace King): Is the hon. Member arguing that these cases come within the Clause?

Mr. Gurden: No, Dr. King. My complaint is that the Clause does not cover joint sewage disposal boards.

The Temporary Chairman: If the hon. Member's argument is that the cases to which he has referred do not come within the Clause, but ought to be covered by the Clause, he is out of order.

Mr. Gurden: That may well be, Dr. King. I had a suspicion that that was the case, but since I did not have a reply from my right hon. Friend when I spoke on this matter in Committee on the previous occasion, quite frankly I was taking advantage of this opportunity to try to extract from him some information. I understand that he had knowledge of the matter before it was raised by me and I gathered from the joint sewage disposal boards that he was quite willing to do something about it.
However, I cannot proceed with this convincing case, which is of no special advantage for any local authority in particular but is rather a joint matter which should be cleared up. I had only just realised that there may not be any Amendments accepted to the Bill and in that case there would not be anything but a formal Report stage. I was hoping, therefore, to get in on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," but I shall be content to listen to what my right hon. Friend has to say on the point later.

4.30 p.m.

Sir L. Plummer: It is natural enough, when discussing a Clause such as this, that many of us should make constituency speeches which would be interesting to our constituents, interesting to the local authority, interesting to the hon. Member himself, but would not be of much interest to the rest of the Committee. I propose to follow the example which has been set by making a constituency speech and I guess that the only person who will listen to me, and that not with much sympathy, will be the right hon. Gentleman himself.
Before doing so, I want to say a few words to the Minister as a constituent of his. That is not to say I ever voted for him—God forbid that I ever should—but


he represents me in the House of Commons and, therefore, it is necessary for me to speak to him as a constituent as well as a London Member. Since the right hon. Gentleman has been occupying his illustrious post, he has been imposing burden upon burden on the citizens of London. I do not know what these brave and industrious people have done to deserve such treatment. Because the right hon. Gentleman represents a borough of London which is, on the whole, highly prosperous, he has no excuse for exercising his talents for extortion on other boroughs which are not so fortunately placed.
Facing our constituents in these London working-class boroughs there is a constant rise in the cost of one thing or another and there is no sympathy from the Government. Not at any time have the Government said to us that they are trying to alleviate these conditions. What they do is to pile Pelion on Ossa until the position of our people is causing anxiety.
I noticed that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education, in an appeal to Oxford University undergraduates not to emigrate, listed four points which show clearly that this great nation is really all right and should not be left. One he quoted in aid mentioned the number of people who, every year, looked at historic houses. If this Government go on much longer there will be an army from my constituency trying to get into historic houses and to squat there, because they will not be able to afford to pay their rents and rates. For the right hon. Gentleman, who knows London well, and who has built his reputation in London, to treat these boroughs in this fashion makes me believe that he has, as the rest of his party has, a death wish on them, for he and his hon. Friends are doing their best to destroy themselves at the hands of the electorate.
The rates of the London County Council will go up this year. It is fair to assume that from all the indications. The rates of the local authorities will go up, too. My own will certainly go up. The effect of Clause 1 of the Bill is to add another 18d. to the rates in the Borough of Deptford; for the effect of the relief is to reduce the income of the borough by about £65,000. So we have to go to the people in their homes and say, "Under one Act introduced by the

right hon. Gentleman"—or rather piloted by the right hon. Gentleman; never let us shame him with the responsibility of having introduced the Measure—"you have to pay more rent. You now have to pay more rates. You now have to make more provision for this, that and the other."
How does the right hon. Gentleman expect the citizens of a working-class borough like Deptford to recoup themselves from the impositions which he is placing upon them? What can they do? In these heterogeneous suburbs there are not many people who belong to strong trade unions, because there is not any great industry there. As many of my hon. Friends know, these boroughs are dormitories for people who work in all parts of London and in all kinds of occupations. They are not closely knit, as are the miners and engineers and other industrial workers, who can go, through their trade unions, to their employers and get at least some part of the increased cost which the Government have put upon them. These people have to go without.
Clearly, it is the policy of the right hon. Gentleman—and he is following it with an enthusiasm which is distasteful—to see that there is a steady lowering of the standard of life of those living in the London suburbs. How, in all equity, can he justify that a borough like Deptford, which I have the honour to represent, should be penalised in this way in the interests of making it easy for the Chancellor to raise the Surtax limit for right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite and the people they represent? To do this is to deny a fruitful reward to the working people of London who have contributed, and who continue to contribute, so much to the well-being and prosperity of this nation.

Mr. H. Rhodes: Piecemeal legislation such as this Bill is indicative of the failure of the Government to keep a grip on the legislative programme and on the needs of the people.
Since I came into Parliament I have not known the local authorities with which I am associated so disturbed as they are about this Bill and about the provisions in Clause 1, and so I make no apology for delivering a constituency


speech for a few minutes. In my constituency I have the Borough of Ashton-under-Lyne, the Borough of Mossley and the Urban District of Droylsden. In the case of Ashton-under-Lyne the provisions in Clause 1 mean an increase in the rates of 1s. 8d. in the £. In the case of Mossley it is 1s. 5d. in the £. In the case of the Urban District of Droylsden it is 2s. in the £.
That means that in the case of a house which has a rateable value of £20, the increase in rent is likely to be 7½d. per week. If the rateable value were £30, the increase would be 11d., and so on. Here in London people sometimes are apt to think that a few coppers on the weekly outgoings of a working-class or middle-class home is not very important. While 7½d. may not seem much to some hon. Members sitting in the House of Commons, it is a very important amount in the budget of the average working-class home in a constituency like mine.
This imposition, together with the increases in respect of the welfare services of our community which were announced yesterday, will make an impact compared with which many of the things that the Government have done even in the immediate past will fade into insignificance. This is a straw which could break the camel's back.
The timing is all wrong for local local authorities. The chairmen of local authority finance committees are very busy at present, and we should remember that they give their time and are not paid civil servants. During the last few weeks they have been cudgelling their brains to find out how to make ends meet. To bring forward a Bill such as this, with provisions like those contained in Clause 1, is, to say the least, upsetting, distracting and ridiculous at this time.
The banks, the multiple stores, the chain stores and others who are favoured under Clause 1 are added to the list of the privileged classes who receive the benefit of derating. Clause 1 introduces fresh confusion by creating a new class. The Minister ought to realise that these piecemeal bits of legislation which create confusion among, and additional work for, local authorities are a real injustice, and to be deplored.
There was enough chaos after the 1955 Act. In my constituency at present large

sums of money are being withheld because claims are being made against increased assessment under that Act. It seems that it will be many years before some of the claims can be heard. In fact, the Inland Revenue Valuation Department cannot say when the cases will be heard at all. So far no valuation courts have been set up, and there appears to be no likelihood of any being set up in our district during the next year or two.
I do not know why this Measure should have been introduced, nor do the aldermen, councillors and local authority officials in my constituency. When the regulations under the 1955 Act were introduced, the local traders objected, but they did not regard the situation as sufficiently serious to warrant this kind of legislation. The local traders were more concerned with the question of industrial derating than their own increased assessments. I want to put on record the fact that the Bill is causing anxiety and injustice to people who can least afford to bear this extra burden, and protest on behalf of the citizens and the local authorities in the constituency of Ashton-under-Lyne.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. James MacColl: I have an advantage over some of my hon. Friends in that I have not previously spoken during the proceedings on the Bill, so I approach the discussion with a freshness of outlook which appeals to me, though it may not necessarily appeal to my hon. Friends.
I was particularly moved and stimulated by the speech of the hon. Member for Selly Oak (Mr. Gurden). The hon. Member was fortunate enough to catch the eye of the Chair. From among all the Conservative hon. Members who have been bursting to speak—[HON. MEMBERS: "Both of them."]—from among the representatives of different types of local authorities, representatives of different interests affected by the Bill, who have struggled with each other to catch your eye, Sir Charles—the hon. Member alone was successful.
The hon. Member complained that he had not understood the rules of the game. He had an intelligent suggestion to make for altering the Bill. He did not understand that there were not to be any Amendments and that there would not be other than a formal Report stage.


Poor innocent, he did not know his Minister. What does he think happens when we discuss local government affairs and matters affecting the welfare of the business community and the residents of the houses in our local authority areas? The Minister takes no notice of what is said and makes no attempt to listen to reason, to consider Amendments on their merits or to get the Bill altered in accordance with the constructive suggestions that are made.
That was what happened in the Standing Committee on the Rent Bill this morning. The Minister had to get walloped because it was too much even for his hon. Friend.

Mr. David Jones: Does my hon. Friend realise that the Minister actually said, last Thursday, that because the Bill had been in the hands of the municipalities since 21st December, and they had based their calculations on the fact that it would pass through the House unaltered, he thought he ought not to accept any Amendments?

Mr. MacColl: That is what "consultation with local authorities" means to the Conservative Party. When one wishes to avoid Parliamentary criticism, one consults local authorities and agrees with them and then one says that one cannot alter the Bill. When one knows that the local authorities are going to disagree with one, one says that it is inappropriate to discuss alterations until one has the agreement of the House.
The way the Government have behaved over valuation is an absolutely shocking story. It started with the Valuation for Rating Act, 1953. That was followed by the Rating and Valuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1955. Now we are discussing the Rating and Valuation Bill, with no "Miscellaneous Provisions." Thus, since 1953 we have had three Measures dealing with the problems of rating and valuation. The only originality the Government have displayed is in changing the names of the Measures by ringing the changes between "Valuation for Rating" and "Rating and Valuation," and, for good measure, tossing in "Miscellaneous Provisions" in the middle.
How can local authorities be expected to plan their budgets when the lifeblood

of their operation, their rateable value, is treated in this way at two-yearly intervals? It is the very negation of planning, the negation of any kind of orderly direction in budgeting. It makes it impossible for financial committees or ratepayers to have any idea of what the position will be.
We have not come to the end of the story, because even while we have been discussing the Clause we have had a statement from the Minister to say that he has in mind even wider proposals for reconstructing local government finance. So, even when they are faced with the Bill, local authorities will know that next Session there may well be another major Measure which will completely alter the whole position.
There can be no excuse for the Government messing about with the affair in this way, taking these different bites at a complicated problem. The right hon. Gentleman cannot pretend that the Clause has come about because its necessity has been suddenly realised, because I notice from the OFFICIAL REPORT that the Parliamentary Secretary said earlier in our proceedings that the Government well knew, when we were discussing the 1953 Measure, that there would be difficulties over the different rating of shops and residential property.
That point was mentioned to the Government during the Committee stage of that Measure, but the present Prime Minister simply ignored the problem. He brushed it aside, saying that he was not prepared to deal with it. In other words, he left what he knew to be a difficult problem, a problem which he knew would become more and more important, until everybody had to act on the basis of the 1953 Measure. Now the Government have turned round and said that there is a tremendous emergency and we must rush through this Bill in anticipation of the general reconstruction of local government finance.
That is utterly inexcusable. We could have dealt with the whole matter when we were dealing with the 1953 Act, or have left it to be dealt with as part of the general revision which is promised for the future. Either of those plans would have had some excuse. What has no excuse is lifting this Measure out of its general context and introducing it as a


special Measure. Whatever may be the technicalities, whatever may be said about the hardship and the rest of it, the essentials of the Clause are that the ordinary tenant of a house will pay some of the rates of the great banks, the Midland Bank, the National Provincial Bank, and the rest. That is what the Bill means. The Government may try to camouflage it with technicalities, but that is what they are doing.
The Bill will remove rates from the great banks and chain stores and, if industrial hereditaments are not to be rerated, those rates must be paid by the ordinary ratepayers, owner-occupiers and tenants. At a time when the Government are so helpfully putting this extra burden of rates on the tenants of houses, they are also passing the Rent Bill, which increases the rents those tenants will have to pay. Elsewhere, we suggested that they ought to fix a ceiling of 7s. 6d. for a rent increase applied to gross rents and not only to net rents.
The effect of that would have been that a tenant suddenly faced with the increase would have known that in total he had to pay only 7s. 6d., instead of being swindled—which is what will happen. However, what will happen is that tenants will receive a note from the landlords saying that their rent is to be increased and that their rates are to be increased because the Midland Bank and the National Provincial Bank and the rest cannot afford to pay all of their rates and so the tenants of ordinary houses will pay the extra amount.
This is a new lot of muddled incompetency and failure to appreciate the problems of local government finance. Unfortunately, it is not the end, but the middle of a whole chain of incompetent muddle and badly thought-out legislation which people cannot understand and about which they are left completely in the dark. It is entirely unjust and discriminates against those people who can least afford to bear the burden.

Mr. Elwyn Jones: It is deplorable that the Minister, with his considerable record in local government affairs, should have the task of piloting this Clause through the House of Commons. It is even more deplorable that he appears to relish the task. In the Rent

Bill he appears to be playing the rôle of a kind of inverted Robin Hood, robbing the poor to assist the rich. In this Bill he is playing the part not of the Minister of Local Government, but of the Minister for the dissolution of local government.
A series of Measures is being introduced by the present Administration, which is certainly having the effect of increasing the problems of local government. Whether it is calculated to do that, I do not know. I sometimes wonder whether the intention is to place upon progressive local authorities the odium which would normally come to the Government by reason of their reactionary legislation.
The effect of the Clause on hard-hit areas, such as that which I represent, is very considerable. I make no apology for briefly referring to one or two essential statistics. Clause 1 will deprive West Ham of a rateable value of about £171,000. My hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer) asked the Minister what London and the blitzed areas had done to deserve this treatment from the Government. This hard-hit area, with almost the whole of England's social problems in a nutshell, is once more being struck a blow by the Government, with no provision for compensatory grants for the West Ham authority to make good the loss.
The rate which will be required from West Ham ratepayers in 1957–58 will have to be increased by 1s. 8d. For the occupant of a house with a rateable value of £25, that will be an additional 10d. a week in rates. The Minister may say that that is a negligible sum, but these additional impositions of 10d. a week on the working class budget are hitting the people hard and are hitting hard those in a constituency where people work hard. Not many people live in idleness in West Ham. There are many old-age pensioners who can no longer work, but I do not think that it will be suggested that they can afford another 10d. a week.
This is yet another Measure which will hit those least able to bear the burden and is in fact a classic piece of Tory legislation. It comes to West Ham at a time when it is already to be heavily hit by the reduction of £180,000 in the Exchequer equalisation grant during the next two financial years. That sum also


will have to be met by increased rates, and so the Clause is calculated to increase the difficulties of local authorities.
Our democracy depends upon the health and vigour not only of Parliament—that, of course, is the pillar of our democracy—but also of local authorities. This constant undermining of local government is creating a mood of depression and despair among aldermen and councillors throughout the country. It is doing great harm to local government and deterring those able men who ought to be rendering services to the community in this sphere from volunteering to enter upon the arduous duties of local government.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. W. E. Wheeldon: During my experience of the House of Commons, I have not known an occasion when a Measure has received so little support from hon. Members as this Bill. There has not been one hon. Member on the Government back benches who has given unqualified support to it. Indeed, nearly all the speeches made from the Government side, and there have not been many, I agree, have been highly critical of the Government's proposals.
That criticism is, of course, reflected outside. Throughout the country, pretty well every local authority has expressed an opinion against these proposals. The only support for the Bill, as far as I can see, has come from those few people who will certainly gain fairly considerably from these proposals once they are enacted. It is remarkable, too, I think, that even those local authorities which have Tory majorities have opposed the Bill. I think the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Black), during the Second Reading debate, gave the instance of his own county council, the Surrey County Council, and I think also of the Wimbledon Borough Council, both of them with Tory majorities, having gone on record in protest against these proposals.
Surely, the Minister ought to regard that criticism as being significant, but, instead, he has sat here throughout the whole course of the Bill and has even indicated that he does not intend in any way whatever to compromise on the Bill or to accept any Amendments. In view of the terms of Clause 1, I think that is

deplorable. I believe myself, and I said so on Second Reading, that there is complete justification for the opposition that has been expressed. The Bill adds to the growing number of anomalies that abound in our rating system. It aggravates the unfairness of the incidence of the rate burden, and, despite what the Parliamentary Secretary said a few days ago, it perpetuates a state of continual change in local government affairs.
We were appealed to only a few months ago from the Government side of the House not to proceed with our Bill for the rerating of industry, and one of the strongest arguments which hon. Members on the Government side put forward was that we must allow local government finance to settle down until there was a complete and general review. That was not said in isolation; it was put forward by both the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary, and by their supporters on the back benches opposite. If that argument holds good for the derating of industry, it holds good equally well for the derating of certain commercial and other premises. The Minister and the Government are doing local government a very bad service indeed in introducing at this time a Measure of this kind.
For 20 years, local authorities have been in a state of almost complete confusion and chaos in regard to the rating system. From 1934 until last year, they were handicapped by the failure of successive Governments to deal properly with revaluation. Then we had a revaluation, and the local authorities at least hoped that for a few years to come they would be able to settle down to a slightly more orderly and sane system. No sooner had we got that revaluation and that slightly more orderly system of raising finance than we got a Measure of this kind, which, of course, means more confusion and more chaos, more chopping and more changing.
All this has been brought forward, I believe, on the plea that some mitigation should be accorded to the poor shopkeeper. I have every sympathy with shopkeepers or indeed anyone else who is hard hit as a result of rating, but I have not yet been convinced that there is any real hardship as a result of the revaluation that took place last year.
I want to examine the point of view that has been strongly expressed by the


Minister himself. In my contention, this alleged benefit for the small shopkeeper will prove to be something very small indeed. On the Minister's own figures, three-eighths of the total relief will go to shopkeepers, but only a tiny fraction of that three-eighths, in my opinion, consists of what we as laymen think of as ordinary shopkeepers—the man who keeps the corner shop which sells sealing wax, cabbages and all the rest of it. Quite a large proportion of this three-eighths will go to branches of the various joint stock banks and the large multiple stores—large prosperous concerns—but even on that figure of three-eighths which the Minister quoted the conclusions to be drawn are not quite those which the Minister would lead the Committee to believe.
The total relief given to this section of shopkeepers, and I am again quoting the Minister's figure, is £44 million of rateable value. Taking three-eighths of that figure, we arrive at £16½ million of rateable value. In the same speech, the right hon. Gentleman told us that there were 674,000 shops which would have the benefit of that relief. If we divide the £161 million by the 674,000 shops, according to my arithmetic there will be a relief per annum of £24 9s. of rateable value. I propose to assume that, on the average, the rates will be 20s. in the £. They are not that now, but if this Government remain in office much longer, they soon will be. If I take the figure of 20s. in the £ as the average, and I think that that is a generous figure, well on the side of the Government, it will mean that, on the average, the relief granted to the shops will be 9s. 5d. per week.
All this upset, chaos and confusion for 9s. 5d. a week per shop on the average. But that is not the end of the story, because we must remember that that figure of 674,000 shops includes the bank branches, off-licences, cafés, restaurants and large stores as well. All that for so little.
Therefore, I conclude that the Bill is completely unjustified. It is a typical example of Tory tenderness for the well-to-do, because the relief which the Government are giving, as has been pointed out by many of my hon. Friends, is almost entirely at the expense of those people who can least afford the burden.

Anyone who lives in or represents an industrial constituency knows very well that, despite full employment, there is today among many working-class people a considerable fear of the extra burdens they are having put on their shoulders month after month by the increases in the cost of living. We had another example in the proposals announced on behalf of the Government yesterday, and very shortly these people will have further increases in their rents. On top of all that, there will be increases as a result of this Bill.
All these are mounting up in the aggregate to a very considerable burden on working-class shoulders, yet, by this Bill, the Government are saying, in effect, "We are going to give relief to the banks and other prosperous people and ignore completely the claims of the poorer people." On that basis, it is quite fair to conclude that the Bill is totally unjustified and should be opposed by all reasonable means.

Mr. Sidney Dye: The Bill has been described by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Ham, South (Mr. Elwyn Jones) as a piece of classical Tory legislation. It could quite truthfully be called many other things. The sting of the Bill is in this Clause; in fact, if there had been no Clause 1 there would have been no Bill. The Clause came like a bolt from the blue to local authority organisations. For a long time they had been discussing with the Ministry rating and other matters related to their finance. Then, without any kind of indication or notice, came the Bill.
In that respect it is a disgraceful piece of work. In fact, we can describe the Bill as a bastard Bill, because whereas legislation in connection with local government finance is usually put forward as the result of negotiations and discussions between the representatives of local government associations and the Ministry, this one came unheralded upon the scene. Local government organisations have no knowledge of its parentage. They took no part in it. So, if it is a classical piece of Tory legislation, it is also unfair in relation to the way in which it has been presented to the House.
The effect of the Clause is to reduce the rateable value of shops and other premises and put up the rates on ordinary


house property. Other hon. Members have referred to the effect in their constituencies. Local authorities have been faced with the rising cost of administering their services. In Norfolk, in the coming financial year, whereas the rise in the cost of all services administered by the county council amounts to 6d. in the £, the Clause will mean an increase of 1s. in the £. The cost of administering the health, welfare, and education services, and maintaining the highways and so forth, has caused an increase of 6d. in the £ during the twelve months, whereas the Bill means an increase of 1s. in the £.
There will be a little saving to shopkeepers, but will they be able to reduce the price of anything which they sell in their shops? I am afraid that the customers, who are already being asked to bear a portion of the rate burden which the shops would otherwise have borne, will not derive any advantage from the Bill. We have been told that the Bill was introduced to bring relief to the small shop-keeping community, who are on the verge of bankruptcy as a result of five years of Tory Government, but we can be quite sure that nothing will be cheaper. Whereas prices in the shops will remain as they are, the customers, through their rates, will have to meet this additional sum, which amounts to 1s. in the £ in Norfolk.
5.15 p.m.
That is quite unfair. It seems to be in accord with all the efforts which the Government are making to raise the cost of living. It seems to be the only thing that they want to do. They want to increase the price of everything—food, rents, etc.—and apparently the rates must go up as much as possible this year. Why have the Government suddenly taken it into their head to regard this as the year in which the cost of everything should be increased? It would be extraordinary to expect the situation to remain as it is now. It is quite likely that the effect of the various measures which the Government have introduced—including this one—will he cumulative and will lead to further inflation.
The Government have been very misguided in treating local authorities as they have done, and in monkeying about with rateable value in the way in which they have done, by forcing the county and borough councils to increase their rates

this year because of this adjustment, and postponing the rerating of industry to a later date, when it should all have been done at once. This is the piecemeal method of a Government who do not know what they want to do. They have no clear vision of the function and finances of local government.
Almost without exception the many men and women who voluntarily give their time to local government service are feeling discouraged because of the way in which the Government are treating them in this Bill and in other matters. Fewer people will be coming forward to serve on local authorities, because of the feeling that a rise in rates brings with it a disfavour towards those who serve on local councils. This is a bastard of a Bill, coming from a Government which are very doubtful about what they do.

Mr. W. R. Williams: My hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Dye) poses a very pertinent question, namely, why are the present Government piling on the agony for the lower-paid elements of the community? Almost every week we are told of some additional burden being placed on the working classes. The answer is not so difficult to find as my hon. Friend thinks. There is no General Election this year. It is quite possible that there will not be one next year. The Government want to do now as much as possible of the dirty work that they propose to do during their term of office, in order to make reasonably certain that when the General Election comes, in one, two or three years, the people will have forgotten the evils which are taking place this year.
I want to make it quite clear to the Minister that the people will have long memories about some of these issues. Anybody who goes around his constituency, especially if it is an industrial one, will be satisfied that the Government will not get away with some of the things which they are doing by way of increases in rents and other impositions upon the working classes. If the workers have ever been class-conscious during the last ten years, they are class-conscious now. They realise that the legislation enacted in this Parliament is class-conscious to a very formidable degree.

Lieut.-Colonel J. K. Cordeaux: Does the hon. Member agree that, whenever the next General


Election does take place, last year will be even further away from it than this year? Wages were then rising very much faster than prices.

Mr. Williams: I should like the hon. and gallant Member to pose that question to electors in his constituency, especially the old-age pensioners and other people living on small incomes. When he has done that he may be entitled to have the audacity to ask me whether the situation is as he describes it.

Lieut.-Colonel Cordeaux: Lieut.-Colonel Cordeaux rose—

Mr. Williams: I think I had better get on with my speech and allow the hon. and gallant Gentleman time to think about the matter and to go to his constituency so that he will not have to ask me to answer a question which his constituents can answer equally well for him.
My second point is this. I am very surprised that even the docile back benchers opposite are prepared to take these recurring blows which their Government are inflicting upon them. It seems quite clear that the Executive alone is working out all these things. Parliament is losing its authority in these matters as surely as night follows day.
Here we have another example of where the most important Clause of a Bill is going through its Committee stage without, so far as I can see, a single Amendment to it being accepted. One or two hon. Members opposite had the courage to say that this was a bad Clause; in fact, they went further and said that the Bill was a bad Bill. I know that it is the view of a large number of lion. Members opposite that the Clause is a bad Clause, and I am sure that they must, through their usual channels, have brought to the notice of the Minister the fact that they regard both the Bill and the Clause as bad.
We on this side of the Committee, goodness knows, have tried to show what the effect will be on our working-class constituents. We have done everything to try to improve the Bill, if that be possible. The net result of our efforts has been that not a single Amendment put down by us has been accepted by the Government.
I warn Governments, no matter of which colour, that if they insist on having

government by Executive like this in respect of all Bills of major importance to the people of this country, then the question of democratic government will be seriously involved. The people, and hon. Members on both sides of the Committee, will come to the conclusion that it is impossible to improve such Measures and that the will of the Executive will always prevail. Even Ministers are becoming slaves to the bureaucracy of Whitehall. I think it is time that someone said this in this House of Commons before Parliament's democratic way is seriously disturbed.
There is no need for me to repeat all the things which I said on Second Reading, but I wish to mention one or two again in order to emphasise them. I say quite categorically that no small shopkeeper in Manchester is going to be in any way substantially better off. He might be a shilling or two better off, but in no substantial way will the small shopkeepers of Openshaw and Manchester be better off because of the Bill. On the other hand, the Prudential Assurance Co., the banks and the other commercial interests whose profits are already fabulous, will, as a result of the Bill, make much bigger profits and be in a position to pay much bigger dividends. The ordinary fellows in Openshaw will have to pay an extra 2s. in the £ because of this additional burden placed upon them.

Lieut.-Colonel Cordeaux: Lieut.-Colonel Cordeaux rose—

Mr. Williams: I do not think that I should make a habit of allowing the hon. and gallant Gentleman to intervene all the time. I know what he said about the shopkeepers on Second Reading.
To hon. Members opposite who seem to be taking the matter more seriously than does the hon. and gallant Gentleman, I should like to say that they should realise that in the industrial areas they will have to depend on the votes of the ordinary people. I do not see how you can go back and justify your inactivity in regard to Clause 1. You ought to be thoroughly ashamed of yourselves—

The Temporary Chairman: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will address the Chair.

Mr. Williams: I apologise, Dr. King, and bow to what you say. I should not think of saying that the Chairman ought


to be ashamed of anything he did. I was just going to suggest that it is very difficult for hon. Members opposite to think that there is any virtue at all in Clause 1 so far as their constituents are concerned.
I have been asked by Manchester—and I suppose the same is true of Liverpool from where the Parliamentary Secretary comes—to protest as vigorously and as vehemently as I can against this additional burden being placed on the local finances of that great city. This extra 2s. in the £ is additional to the burden of 2s. in the £ already placed upon Manchester by the higher costs of material and labour. It means over 4s. in the £ so far as Manchester is concerned.
I want to make one other point in regard to the matter raised by my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) about those people who are appealing against the rating imposed under the Rating and Valuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act. About 5,000 appeals are pending in Manchester at the present time. The net loss of rateable value to the Manchester City Council arising out of those appeals is over £600,000. Manchester is already losing £1¼ million under the provisions of Clause 1 and a further £½ million because of the withholding of rates under the 1955 Act. That represents an additional burden upon Manchester of more than £2 million under these Measures.
The Government are making a concession to some people under the 1955 Act. Surely, if the Government make concessions of that sort, they should not expect local authorities to face up to the full burden which is being imposed upon them. I wish to ask the Minister, even at this late stage, to do something to help authorities such as Manchester. Manchester gets nothing at all from the equalisation grant. It has never received anything from the grant, but the ratepayers of Manchester, the ordinary householders, are being called upon to bear an additional burden of nearly £2 million.

Mr. D. Jones: I should like to remind my hon. Friend, in view of the fact that he is speaking of Manchester, of what the Minister said on 14th February.

Mr. Ede: North Lewisham day.

Mr. Jones: The Minister said:
I think that any hon. Member, if he consults the town clerk or clerk of the council in his constituency, will be informed that the finance committee has been proceeding on the basis that Clause 1 would pass into law unchanged, and that would, in fact, determine the rateable values for the coming year for that class of property."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th February, 1957; Vol. 564, c. 1483.]
In other words, the Minister said that he was not going to accept any Amendment to the Clause despite what anybody said.

Mr. Williams: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing the obvious to my notice once again. I had really dealt with that point earlier on, but perhaps my hon. Friend had forgotten that. At any rate, I am grateful to him for assisting me, because, as I said previously, I am always grateful for assistance from whichever quarter of the Committee it comes.
Why does not the Minister try, even on this small question of the concession for withholding rates pending appeals, to give some form of compensation to authorities such as Manchester which are being called upon to face such a substantial burden in the coming year? I should have been failing in my duty—I think that some other hon. Members who represent Manchester divisions are failing in their duty for not doing so—if I had not brought to the notice of the Minister the fact that the people of Manchester as a whole and the members of the Manchester City Council, both Tory and Labour, feel that the Government are imposing upon Manchester a burden which is quite unfair and are not spreading it over the people who can afford to stand it. Manchester feels that the burden is being placed on those who find it very hard to make both ends meet on wages which are diminishing in value every day.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Frederic Harris: I have been a Member of the House of Commons for some years, as has the hon. Member for Openshaw (Mr. W. R. Williams), and I have a personal regard for him, but I have never heard such utter nonsense talked by him and by the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Dye) as was contained in their speeches today. Obviously they have not a knowledge of the facts.
I have a complaint against the Government for omitting the balancing factor which they could have put into the Bill by cancelling all industrial derating and thereby saving us much trouble. With respect to the two hon. Members, may I mention that had the Bill not come before us in this way to put things right for them, the shopkeepers would have been in a most unfair position. The former Minister assured us that if he found that such a position as now exists did arise, he would put it right. Not only did he assure hon. Members on this side of the Committee but also hon. Members opposite, who at that time felt strongly about the matter.
What is the truth? If the shopkeepers had had their premises held at the valuations disclosed, theirs would have been virtually the only valuations on an up-to-date basis, because industrial derating still applies and because houses are held back to the 18-year-old valuations of 1939. If house values were brought up to date and put on a correct basis, there would be a much bigger proportion of the total rate burden placed on them.

Mr. F. Blackburn: I take it that the hon. Member is accepting the argument advanced by the Government that the Bill was introduced because of unfairness to the shopkeepers?

Mr. Harris: Yes.

Mr. Blackburn: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that that unfairness was known in 1955 when we had the Rating and Valuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act and that, therefore, in the opinion of the Minister this was going to be unfair? If the Minister proposed to make any concession, that was the time to do it, not 18 months later in another Bill.

Mr. Harris: In December, 1955, I outlined in the House the problem of the small shopkeepers and the difficulties about the valuation of their premises. The then Minister said that when all the facts had been considered, if the valuations proved unfair to the shopkeepers, he would undertake to put the matter right.

Mr. Blackburn: But he knew the facts.

Mr. Harris: Yes, I know, but these are the facts as they were then. I regard

the action of the Government in this case as merely honouring the pledge given by the then Minister, not only to hon. Members on this side of the Committee, but also to hon. Gentlemen opposite who at that time were deeply interested in this matter.
What has been said by the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West and the hon. Member for Openshaw is first-class political stuff, and they know that as well as I do. I do not doubt that the hon. Member for Openshaw thought it was first-class, and I expect that he is pleased about it, but what he said has no relation to the facts of this problem.

Mr. W. R. Williams: Would the hon. Member like to come to Manchester and explain that?

Mr. Harris: I am prepared to explain in any part of the country what is done by this Bill. It is sheer nonsense to argue about the cost of living and everything else, which has nothing to do with the Bill. As everyone who has studied the matter knows only too well, if the valuations on shop premises were left as they are—they are the only ones on an up-to-date basis—shopkeepers would be carrying a most unfair burden in relation to all other ratepayers.

Mr. MacColl: The hon. Member said that he had not heard two hon. Gentlemen talking such utter nonsense as was talked by my hon. Friends. The hon. Gentleman was not in the Chamber when I was speaking. In the course of the nonsense I was talking, I pointed out that the present Prime Minister was told specifically in 1953, when this valuation was approved, that it would have this effect. The right hon. Gentleman ignored that information and refused to do anything about it. How can it now lie in the mouth of the Government to say that they have to rush this Measure through as an emergency when they have had since 1953 to do something about the problem? Why did not the hon. Member vote against the Bill in 1953?

Mr. Harris: I apologise for not being present when the hon. Gentleman spoke. I should like to have heard a third effort. I have followed the debates on the Bill from the commencement because I have been very interested in it, but I could not be present when the hon. Gentleman was speaking.
May I remind the hon. Gentleman that it was a Socialist Government in 1948 who started all this nonsense about valuations? They are the people to blame for causing us this present trouble. What did they do? They held house property at 1939 values. That is what they did. It was an absolute political stunt. The Socialist Party put over this nonsense on the basis that it was all rather complicated, and that hon. Members did not know much about it.

Mr. Dye: As one of the hon. Members who talked so much nonsense, may I ask the hon. Gentleman whether it is the basis of his argument that the difference between 1938 values and 1956 values would be adjusted by a reduction of just 20 per cent. in the valuation of the shops, and that this puts the shops on a par with residential property?

Mr. G. Lindgren: I think that we should put on record that the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. F. Harris) has been one of the most faithful attenders among hon. Members opposite during the debates on the Bill. He said it was the fault of the Labour Government who introduced the 1948 Act that we have the present trouble. We have heard that said two or three times, and it is not correct. The 1948 Act provided a formula for the valuation of houses. That formula was based on certain things—cost of construction, assumed factors, and everything else—and may have been complicated, but it had nothing to do with 1939 values. It was the 1953 Act which scrapped the 1948 basis of valuation for domestic properties and put them on 1939 values.

Mr. Harris: I am prepared to stand by what I have said. The hon. Gentleman is entitled to his view and I am entitled to mine, and I have chapter and verse and lots of correspondence to support the view I have expressed.
Whoever is at fault about the past, the fact remains that we are now considering this Bill and it is nonsense to try to argue that this puts on to the householder the burden that we are taking from the shopkeeper. If house valuations were put on a par with the shops, the burden would be switched back the other way. Therefore, far the moment, it can be reasonably claimed, even on this basis,

that the shopkeepers are still carrying a certain burden which should have been carried by the householders. That is a fair point.

Mr. Dye: How much?

Mr. Harris: How much is anybody's guess. Even in Croydon we have found it difficult to say. I should have thought that this adjustment of 20 per cent. was about right.

Mr. D. Jones: Is not the hon. Gentleman contradicting himself? He argued at the beginning of his speech that the Government did the right thing, and then he said that had the Government brought up industrial hereditaments to 100 per cent. it would have solved the problem. Therefore, there was a problem to be solved. The fact that the Government have now decided on an increase first of 25 per cent. and later of 50 per cent. means that the problem has not been solved, and if the burden has not been placed on industrial hereditaments, obviously it has been placed on the householders.

Mr. Harris: That is a fair argument. Personally, although I was one who made the suggestion of going up by 25 per cent. stages, under the Government's proposals I think that we have the worst of all worlds, as they will find out in due course. Either the Government should have had the courage to say that industrial derating ought to go altogether, or we should carry on as we are. I put up the suggestion only to show the way things must go. As an industrialist, I know only too well that there is no justification today for industrial derating. I should like to have seen in Clause 1 the embracement of the idea of the cancellation of industrial derating, which would have created a different picture.
I fully agree with what the hon. Member said. My answer to all this is that I should have liked to have seen all valuations brought up to present-day valuations. Then there would be no grumbles or grouses. At present we have industry wrongly derated at 75 per cent. and later on, apparently, we are to get a 50 per cent. figure, and we are then to get houses at the 1939 values and shops brought up to the right valuation, followed by a 20 per cent. cut. That is nonsense.
I maintain that what the Government have done by the Bill is to honour the pledge which the Minister gave to shopkeepers. I cannot complain about that. If they had not done so, I should have thought that the shopkeepers had been terribly let down. It is not a question of getting mixed up about who is passing what burden to another. This is a pledge which has been honoured by a Government. I am pleased to see that someone keeps a pledge sometimes in Governments. I still maintain that it is most unfortunate that at the same time we have not done the job properly.
As Clause 1 is drafted I must support it, because it is the right thing for me to do and because it honours the guarantee given by the Minister to me and many of my colleagues at the time. I think that the shopkeepers would have been very unfairly treated if the Clause had not come before us.

Mr. C. W. Gibson: I must confess that the speech that we have just heard from the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. F. Harris) was the most peculiar one that I have listened to for a long time. He described the Bill as being the worst of both worlds, neither good fish, flesh nor fowl, and then said that he would support it. That is, to me, a very illogical way of looking at things.
Nevertheless, I was delighted that an hon. Member near London had said something from the Tory benches. The hon. Member comes from Croydon. I have been sitting in this Chamber for a long time. The London area represents about one-fifth of the population, but there has not been a single Tory spokesman for or against the Bill all the afternoon. Where are they? All the London local authorities, including, I understand, parts of Croydon, have been objecting to the way in which this matter is being dealt with by the Government.
In our previous proceedings I pointed out that the L.C.C. estimate is that these proposals would increase the county rate in London by 1s., but I am told that some of the boroughs will have an increase, for various other reasons, of anything up to 1s. 4d. to stick on top of the 1s. increase, so we may find ourselves in London with an increase in rates of 2s. or more by next April. That is being

piled on top of all the other burdens which the Government are putting on the people.
5.45 p.m.
All the local authorities have protested. We are entitled to protest that no one representing the Tory interests in this Committee has been present this afternoon from the London area except the Minister, who had this Bill fathered on him. I do not believe that he would have brought it to birth himself. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not?"] I do not know. There are Ministers and Ministers. I should not have thought that anyone with knowledge of London local government and the struggle it is having to raise funds to keep the services going would have dared to have fathered this Bill on the London local authorities. Apart from the Minister, no other Conservative Member of Parliament has been here all the afternoon. I have no doubt that, when it comes to a vote, hon. Members opposite will troop in with great joy for something which looks as if it were giving the small shopkeepers an advantage. Is it? I doubt it very much.
My hon. Friend the Member for Small Heath (Mr. Wheeldon) pointed out that the saving to shopkeepers, so far as he could work it out statistically, was about 9s. a week. Are we having all this excitement about Clause 1 over 9s. a week? The truth is that this is not a Bill to give a 20 per cent. cut in the rateable value to small shopkeepers. It gives the very large shopkeepers a 20 per cent. cut. They are the people who will benefit. Woolworth's, with its millions of net profits, Marks and Spencer's and all the other huge stores which make such enormous profits, which can be seen by anyone who takes an intelligent interest in what appears in the newspapers, can afford to pay more; and they ought to pay more considering the wealth which they are getting out of London. They are all to be given a 20 per cent. cut in their rateable value. This cannot be because the present situation is difficult and is making it impossible for them to meet the calls upon them.
In my own area, Clapham, small shopkeepers came to me when the valuations were made and complained. I went to a meeting of the local chamber of commerce to discuss the matter with them. I did not observe there representatives of Woolworth's or of Marks and Spencer's,


or of the brewers. Those there were all small men who felt that they were suffering. They complained very bitterly that they might have a terrific burden put upon them. They have a heavy burden put upon them; I am not disputing that for one moment.

Mr. F. Harris: Would the hon. Gentleman not agree that Woolworth's or any of these other big stores are getting a benefit as a result of this adjustment—as they will do, of course—but that the Government take at least 42½ per cent. of that back by way of taxation on their profits?

Mr. Gibson: Woolworth's put charges for business purposes against Profits Tax. So, whichever way it goes, they stand to gain. Whatever may happen from that angle, the real point is that such big business organisations which run shops do not need because they have been hard hit and cannot meet their expenses a 20 per cent. cut in their rateable value. It is unfair on the community generally to use the small shopkeeper excuse to do something which is grossly unfair to the householders.
The old widow and orphan argument seems to have gone in these days. It is now the small shopkeeper and the small householder that we hear about from Tory propagandists. Although the hon. Member did his best to hide the fact that the householders have to bear this, it is, nevertheless, true that if businesses, big or small, are to do less, someone alse must pay more or the local authorities must spend less. We know that the local authorities are not to spend less and that, in many cases, they are to spend more. Therefore, the burden must go on the householders. There is nowhere else it can go.
It will mean anything from 1s. 6d. to 2s. or more on the rateable value of every house in London. I say that this is unfair to London householders and that the burden should have been put on other shoulders. I agree with the hon. Member about derating. I have been preaching it for years. I even got my chamber of commerce to pass a resolution in favour of it. But apparently that is net the sort of thing that has influence on the powers that be who bring such Bills as this forward. Everyone who knows anything about local government will admit that

there really is a need not to fiddle around with the burden of rates like this, but to give the local authorities an additional source of income in some way, and I think that those who are at present getting away with paying no rates ought to pay them—the landlords.
I would tax land values and thereby give a considerable increase in income to the local authorities. It would do what the Minister said he wanted to do the other day, when he was talking about putting this 25 per cent. extra on businesses. It would give the local authorities more freedom and independence in the running of local affairs. This Clause will not do it. It will add to the difficulties of the local authorities. It will make more unfairness in the way in which the burden of local authority rates is borne.
I hope that the Committee will reject the Clause and that hon. Members opposite will not make the kind of speech which the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West made, criticising it and then saying that he would vote for it. Finally, I again call attention to the fact that none of the Conservative Members of Parliament for the London area, where this Bill will certainly be a very great burden upon householders, has been present to listen or to take part in the debate.

Mr. Mitchison: We have had a full discussion on this Question. I hope that we shall be able to proceed with the rest of the Bill and to complete the Third Reading, after a short discussion—if any—by eight o'clock, which hon. Members will remember was an engagement as regards the completion of the Bill. I shall not take long.
The right hon. Gentleman has on several occasions made his case for the Clause, but he has left me completely unconvinced. This is the one temporary Clause in the Bill. The only reason for it, we are told, is to deal here and now with something that can wait no longer. On 8th May last year, his predecessor in office told us that the general review of local government finance would be completed by the end of 1956. Between the Second Reading of the Bill and the Committee stage the right hon. Gentleman told us that he had in fact completed it. His predecessor expected also to finish by the end of the year the discussions with local authorities, which the right


hon. Gentleman proposes to hold in the future.
It is clear that the right hon. Gentleman has known all along that he was just on the verge of reaching at any rate his own conclusions on the subject of local government finance generally. The question that still remains unanswered is, why, in those circumstances, did he think it necessary to bring forward this one provision in advance of everything else and, by so doing, to cause grave difficulties to local authorities and to impose on the domestic ratepayer a burden which the ratepayer ought not to be called upon to bear?
Let us see the effects of the Clause. It is crystal clear. It was not crystal clear at the beginning. Some of the arguments brought forward in favour of it seem to have had remarkably little to do with the simple reality of the Clause. The Clause deals with relief amounting to about £44 million of rateable value in the year, that is to say, about one-fifth of the total of £220 million. That relief is given to whom? About five-eighths of it goes to people who on any showing cannot be regarded as shopkeepers but own substantial offices, perhaps in the City of London. They include branches of banks or of insurance companies, and other kinds of office in which every type of business is transacted. That is a large and miscellaneous class. Even when we refer to the shopkeepers we find the banks inside the category and called "shops" in the analysis of rateable value.
The long and short of it is that shops as a whole will get about a quarter of the benefit, or three-eighths if one takes the full category of shops. It is only roughly a quarter when we eliminate the banks, etc. included in that category. At the end of all that, which shops will get the benefit? The answer is "All shops". The hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. F. Harris), on the Government benches, who has attended throughout the Committee proceedings and with many of whose views I have the greatest sympathy, was mistaken when he supported the Clause on the ground that it would benefit the small shopkeepers. If that were the only problem the width of this Clause would be inexcusable. If that was the intention of the Government, they could have done it far more simply by

framing the Bill to exclude offices, as suggested from this side of the Committee in the earlier proceedings. Now we can see what the effect will be.
I repeat, because it is right to repeat, that two classes of people will benefit from the Bill. One is the shopkeepers, large and small; Marks and Spencer's, Woolworth's, the Great Universal Stores and all its subsidiaries, as well as the small shopkeepers who are put forward as a kind of sentimental smokescreen, and who will get precious little out of the Bill because they will lose something as individual ratepayers.
On the other side of the picture is the Prudential Assurance Company. Go and tell a man in a small street that his rates are going up 2s. in the £ so that he may pay the rates of the Prudential and of the big joint-stock banks. It may be good Tory justice, but it does not appeal to us on this side of the Committee.
One further person will benefit. I again repeat; I think it right to repeat what has been said before. The Treasury is putting its hand on the finances of local authorities first in one way and then in another. Local authority activities are more and more cramped and reduced to doing the very minimum, and that with difficulty. The Treasury meanwhile scoops something into the till in order to make the next Budget a little less hard than the economic circumstances of this country justify. That is the picture.
Why do we say that the Treasury profits? For this simple reason; do not let us forget it. If this concession is made to these people the result will be a benefit to the Treasury as they all treat their rating as an allowable expense.
The domestic ratepayer has nothing of that sort to fall back upon. This money is taken straight out of his pocket. It is additional money, considerable additional money. Rate poundages of the order of 1s. 6d. or 2s. have been mentioned. I am told that the figure for Manchester is now 2s. 5d. Whatever the figure is, it is considerable, at a moment when the cost of living is going up and when the householder will have to pay more for insurance stamps, when his milk and bread subsidies are being withdrawn and when, if he lives in a rented house, his rent is being put up by this Tory Government.
Here is a typical instance of a little bit of Tory legislation, brought in to mulct the small man and the local authorities for the benefit of the big boys. That is just about what it amounts to.
6.0 p.m.
Why this Measure could not have been postponed to await the general review, or the very simple project of rerating industry 100 per cent. was not coupled with it, in which case the cost would not have fallen on the domestic ratepayer at all, I absolutely fail to understand. The right hon. Gentleman says that that is administratively impossible. That is the last desperate resort of every Government wishing not to do the right thing. Let him remember that my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), with all his experience of local government and with the expressed views of two leading local authorities which he mentioned behind him, said there was no reason whatever not to bring in the rerating of industry now, and that local authorities could cope both with that and with this in time for their next financial year.
Does the right hon. Gentleman say that my right hon. Friend is wrong and that, sitting in his Ministry in Whitehall, the right hon. Gentleman knows so much more than does my right hon. Friend about what local authorities can and cannot do? If he does I am bound to tell him that I prefer the practical experience, over very many years, of my right hon. Friend. The right hon. Gentleman has also had practical experience, but I prefer the views of my right hon. Friend to the views which the right hon. Gentleman now expresses from his eyrie in Whitehall.
The right hon. Gentleman knows full well that if in fact those two things had been brought in together the local authorities would have been all right and that poor, harassed man, the ordinary ratepayer, the householder, would not have had to suffer this totally unnecessary burden at this moment.

The Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Mr. Henry Brooke): Before I rebut and demolish the main argument of the Opposition, I hope that the Committee will allow me to refer back to a number of points raised by individual

hon. Members on both sides of the Committee, not only today but when this debate began a week ago.
My hon. Friend the Member for Selly Oak (Mr. Gurden) spoke of the position of sewage works. I must remind the Committee that when we were discussing earlier Amendments to the Bill I explained at some length why the Clause was drafted so as to apply exclusively to properties which were assessed to gross values and excluded properties assessed to net values. I indicated the reasons why it was not possible for the Government to accept an Amendment which would have extended this concession to the whole gamut of properties assessed to net values, and went on to argue that it would be unreasonable to pick out certain categories assessed to net values—of which sewage works might be one—and give them selectively the benefit of this concession.
I would remind my hon. Friend that in the course of that earlier debate I explained that we should have a major local government Bill before us in the relatively near future. I undertook to examine all these matters beween now and then. I suggested that other hon. Members who were interested in them, and who have brought points before the Committee, might likewise wish to examine them between now and then because it seems to me there is no doubt that if hon. Members wish to raise this issue on that occasion there will be a further opportunity to do so. I explained the reason why I did not think it would be right to complicate this ad hoc Bill with further Amendments of that kind.
The hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) this afternoon expressed a wish to deprive the beneficiaries from this Clause of the benefit of Section 1 (7) of the 1955 Act. I am in some difficulty in replying to the hon. Member because what he was putting to the Committee was the argument in favour of an Amendment which was not selected. Therefore, I think he will appreciate that I cannot go down that path very far. I will, however, say to him that, even after the reductions made by this Bill are taken into account, the properties which are relieved by Clause 1 will still be bearing on an average a substantially larger share of the rate burden than they were


bearing before the revaluation. It would seem somewhat strange in those circumstances to deprive them of a right to which others who are bearing no larger share than they bore in 1955–56 would still be entitled. That, briefly, is my answer to the hon. Member. Had we been able to debate it on an Amendment, no doubt we could both have developed our points of view at greater length.
The hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks), who is not in his place at the moment, but who always has a well-informed contribution to make to our debates, suggested that there was some insinuation in this Clause against the work of valuation officers. I am sure that on reflection no hon. Member would wish to make any charge of that sort. The Committee fully realises, I am certain, that the valuation officers carry out their professional duties in accordance with the law laid down by Parliament. It is their duty to value to gross values as laid down. Then it is for this House to decide whether any class of ratepayers should be given a reduction from the gross values arrived at by the valuation officers. I want to assure the Committee—if there is any need for the assurance—that it is not because of any shortcomings in the work of valuation officers that this matter is brought forward.

Mr. J. T. Price: The right hon. Gentleman says that it is the duty of the House to correct any mistakes or misvaluations made by the officers. Surely the appellate tribunal is there. Is it not true that the vast majority of those whom the Bill is now to relieve did not appeal at all against the valuation?

Mr. Brooke: If tomorrow morning the hon. Member reads what I said I think he will find that I did not suggest for a moment that it was the duty of this House to take appeal cases away from valuation officials. On the contrary, all I was seeking to do was to make clear that there are two distinct tasks to be performed. It is for the valuation officer to arrive at the full valuation of each property which he has to examine. It is quite separately and distinctly for this House to decide whether each class of property should be rated on the full annual value or on some reduced figure.

Mr. G. A. Pargiter: Does that mean that at any time in future if an Act of Parliament which we have debated properly and on which we have come to certain conclusions is challenged in some particular form it is the dictum that it will be the duty of the House to examine the result of a particular part of that Act with a view to amending it, even though it is admitted that everything that has been done was in accordance with the wishes of Parliament?

Mr. Brooke: I am not quite sure whether the hon. Member is seeking to argue that one Parliament cannot amend the work of another Parliament, or that one Parliament can bind a future Parliament.
If I may return to the interesting speech of the hon. Member for Acton, he mentioned a figure of £32 million, which was his estimate of the loss of rates—not the loss of rateable values, but the loss of rates—which might result from this Clause. He seemed to me to use words which might have conveyed to the Committee that as a result of the Bill householders would themselves pay an extra £32 million in rates. That, of course, is not the case. As I mentioned on Second Reading the share of the householders in the total rate burden is about 52 per cent., so that in so far as additional rate revenue has to be raised, 52 per cent. of it, and no more than that, will fall on the householders.
The hon. Member for Acton and one or two others suggested that changes in rates per head from year to year were a reliable measure of the rate burden which was falling on the domestic ratepayers. That is a fallacy, because the changes in rates per head of the population take into account the rates paid by all sorts of ratepayers, personal and impersonal, if I may put it that way. Before we can draw any conclusions from variations in rates per head from year to year we have also to examine variations in the share of the total rate burden which is borne by different classes of ratepayer.

Mr. Arthur Moyle: The right hon. Gentleman is speaking about the effect of the Bill on householders. I should like to bring it down to individual cases. I am informed by the Worcestershire County Council that for a house rated at £40, the Bill


will have the effect of increasing the householder's rates by £6 10s. in the next two years.

Mr. Brooke: I am sure that the hon. Member will not expect me, at this stage of the proceedings, to check in detail the effect of the Bill on an individual Worcestershire householder. I was seeking only to do my duty, not to introduce new matter but to reply to a number of points which had been raised in the course of this fairly long debate.
The hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Dye) suggested that if there had been no Clause 1 there would have been no Bill. That, too, is a fallacy. Each of the four operative Clauses of the Bill is intended to correct a clear injustice. Even if any one of them had been omitted there would have been a necessity for the Bill to include the others. All these Clauses were deemed to be urgent in order to remedy definite injustices which could not wait until a longer Bill, such as has been foreshadowed, could be passed into law.
When the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) twits the Government with the suggestion that it would have been easy to speed up the big review of local government finance and, even if these immediate changes had been urgent, to have introduced simultaneously more radical amendments of the rating system or the local government system, I must remind him of what I said earlier. I pointed out that the review of local government finance could not make progress until, first, we saw the new valuations, which were not available until December, 1955, and, secondly, until we saw the rates made by the local authorities on the basis of the new valuations, which came into force from 1st April, 1956.
The hon. and learned Gentleman has suggested that it would have been possible after the time when the new rates came into operation, on 1st April, 1956, to have worked out all the details of a major local government Bill dealing not only with rerating but also with local government structure, areas and status, and to have passed it into law so rapidly and with such little consideration by the House that the local authorities could have based their budgets for 1957–58 upon it. I am sure he would not dream of sustaining that argument in one of his better moments.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Mitchison: Let me assure the right hon. Gentleman that what I said today represented one of my better moments. Let me also ask him this: if what he says is true, why did his predecessor state on 8th May, 1956, when he knew all this, that he expected to have completed his discussions with local authorities and to bring in the proposals consequent on his general review of local government finances by the end of the year? If it is a question of what we do with the proposals, I would tell the right hon. Gentleman that he has not set a very good example by bringing this Bill forward in a form which apparently did not allow him to accept any Amendment, however meritorious.

Mr. Blackburn: May I call to the Minister's attention the fact that the then Parliamentary Secretary stated on 28th June that that review would be completed by the autumn of 1956 and that the necessary legislation would be put into effect by April, 1957?

Mr. Brooke: I had not realised that the hon. and learned Member for Kettering had been having one of his better moments. I had hoped that the hon. and learned Gentleman had even better moments than that.
My predecessor told the House that the Government hoped to be ready by the autumn of 1956 with proposals which they could discuss with the local authorities and then bring them back in time to make an announcement to the House of the Government's conclusions before the end of 1956. That proved not to be possible. A good many things had to be done last year, and the review itself, with which I was not wholly unconnected, took considerably longer than had been expected. If I did wrong in making a statement to the House last week, contrary to my predecessor's announcement that he would consult the local authorities first, then it is to the local authorities that I should apologise and not to Parliament; but I believed in the circumstances that Parliament having been kept waiting for so long, it was desirable that I should make a statement in broad terms to Parliament first. I hope now to consult local authorities.
The main issue between the two sides of the Committee is this: is there at present a measure of injustice in the


rating system towards the shopkeepers? We say that there is, because the shopkeepers and the like are the only people who are rated at 100 per cent. on full current values. Householders are not, agriculture is not and industry is not. We think that that is something which should be remedied at the earliest possible moment. The Opposition's case is that it will cause injustice to the householders and hardship to the local authorities.
Let us look at those points one by one. If the Clause is passed, the householders will find themselves in the coming year bearing 52 per cent. of the total rate burden. Let us look back two years and see what the householders were bearing then. They were bearing no less than 60 per cent. of the whole rate burden. If hon. Members seek to establish that this is a measure of grave injustice to the householders, they have to make clear why it is unjust to the householders to ask them in 1957–58 to pay 8 per cent. less of the total rate burden than they were paying two years earlier.
I am told that the shopkeepers are being much too tenderly treated. They will, under the Government's Bill, be paying 36 per cent. of the total rate burden, as compared with 32 per cent. two years ago. In fact, in the two years, their share will have gone up by 13 per cent. and the share of the householders will have gone down by 13 per cent.

Mr. Herbert Butler: What is right and proper in the relationship? If householders are paying 52 per cent. and someone else is paying 48 per cent., what is the justice in the matter? What is the point about it?

Mr. Brooke: The argument is perfectly simple. It is that we cannot single out one class of ratepayers and rate them at 100 per cent. full current value if everybody else is being treated in a more favourable way.
The final argument put by the Opposition was that this Clause was harsh to the local authorities, who ought to

receive, at once, additional Exchequer assistance. I wanted to satisfy myself about this, and I have been looking up the figures. The Opposition's contentions is that the product of a penny rate will fall and that the the local authorities will, therefore, have greater difficulty in raising money. The fact is that in 1957–58, as compared with 1955–56, the product of a 1d. rate throughout the country will have gone up by 65 per cent. That is the position of the local authorities who are said to be harshly treated by this Clause.

I remember, and I took it to heart, that the hon. Member for Islington, East and one or two other hon. Members, told me that I was already showing myself to be a hopeless Minister in the eyes of local government. The hon. Member for Islington, East said that I had a very unenviable reputation. The hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. West) asked—and I must confess that I thought it was a little early—whether there had ever been in the history of local government a Minister who had faced such widespread opposition from local authorities. The hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) said that I touched a new low in my failure to understand the requirements of local government finance.

I am glad to see that only within the last week the Chairman of the General Purposes Committee of the Association of Municipal Corporations has said that he feels that the Association should give my proposals for local government finance a warm welcome. I am also glad to see that the Secretary of the County Councils Association has said that the Government's plan:
… will, if operated with the imagination shown in its conception, give local authorities an independence of judgment and a responsibility for local affairs which cannot but enhance the status of local government in the country.
I am prepared to let my reputation rest with the local authorities.

Question put, That the Clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 226, Noes 193.

Division No. 67.]
AYES
[6.25 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Armstrong, C. W.
Barlow, Sir John


Aitken W. T.
Ashton, H.
Barter, John


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Atkins, H. E.
Baxter, Sir Beverley


Alport, C. J. M.
Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Baldwin, A. E.
Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)


Arbuthnot, John
Balniel, Lord
Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)




Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Hesketh, R. F.
Page, R. G.


Bidgood, J. C.
Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.
Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)


Biggs Davison, J. A.
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Partridge, E.


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Hill, John (S. Norfolk)
Peyton, J. W. W.


Bishop, F. P.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Body, R. F.
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.


Bossom, Sir Alfred
Hornby, R. P.
Pitman, I. J.


Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)
Horobin, Sir Ian
Pott, H. P.


Boyle, Sir Edward
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)


Braine, B. R.
Howard, John (Test)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Ramsden, J. E.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Hughes-Young, M. H. C.
Rawlinson, Peter


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Hulbert, Sir Norman
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Brooman-White, R. C.
Hurd, A. R.
Remnant, Hon. P.


Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)
Hyde, Montgomery
Renton, D. L. M.


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Hylton-Foster, Sir H. B. H.
Ridsdale, J. E.


Burden, F. F. A.
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Rippon, A. G. F.


Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Robertson, Sir David


Campbell, Sir David
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Carr, Robert
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Channon, Sir Henry
Joseph, Sir Keith
Roper, Sir Harold


Cooper, A. E.
Keegan, D.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Kerby, Capt. H. B.
Russell, R. S.


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Kerr, H. W.
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.


Corfield, Capt. F. v.
Kimball, M.
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Kirk, P. M.
Sharples, R. C.


Crouch, R. F.
Lambert, Hon. G.
Simon, J. E. S- (Middlesbr'gh, W.)


Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Lambton, Viscount
Smyth, Brig. sir John (Norwood)


Currie, G. B. H.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Speir, R. M.


Dance, J. C. C.
Leavey, J. A.
Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)


Davidson, Viscountess
Leburn, W. G.
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)


Deedes, W. F.
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)
Storey, S.


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Linstead, Sir H. N.
Studholme, Sir Henry


Doughty, C. J. A.
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Summers, Sir Spencer


du Cann, E. D. L.
Longden, Gilbert
Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)


Duncan, Capt. J. A. L,
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Taylor, Willliam (Bradford, N.)


Duthie, W. S.
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford &amp; Chiswick)
Teeling, W.


Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Temple, J. M,


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
McKibbin, A. J.
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Errington, Sir Eric
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Fell, A.
McLaughlin, Mrs. P.
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R.(Croydon, S.)


Finlay, Graeme

Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.


Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Maclean, Fitzroy (Lancaster)
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Forrest, G.
MacLeod, John (Ross &amp; Cromarty)
Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)


Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe &amp; Lonsdale)
Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Garner-Evans, E. H.
Maddan, Martin
Vane, W. M. F.


George, J. C. (Pollok)
Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Vickers, Miss J. H.


Gibson-Watt, D.
Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)
Wade, D. W.


Glover, D.
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Godber, J. B.
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)


Gower, H. R.
Marples, Rt. Hon. A. E.
Wall, Major Patrick


Graham, Sir Fergus
Marshall, Douglas
Ward, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Worcester)


Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)
Mathew, R.
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Green, A.
Maude, Angus
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Gresham Cooke, R.
Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.
Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold


Grimond, J.
Mawby, R. L.
Whitelaw, W.S.I.(Penrith &amp; Border)


Grimston, sir Robert (Westbury)
Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Gurden, Harold
Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Wills, G. (Bridgwater)


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Neave, Airey
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Nicholls, Harmar
Wood, Hon. R.


Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)
Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. &amp; Chr'ch)
Woollam, John Victor


Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Nugent, G. R. H.
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfd)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.



Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-S-Mare)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Heath, Rt. Hon, E. R. G.
Osborne, C.
Mr. Barber and Mr. Bryan.




NOES


Ainsley, J. W.
Blackburn, F.
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Blenkinsop, A.
Brown, Thomas (Ince)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Blyton, W. R.
Burke, W. A.


Awbery, S. S.
Boardman, H.
Burton, Miss F. E.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)


Balfour, A.
Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.)
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)


Bellenger, Rt. Hon, P. J.
Bowles, F. G.
Callaghan, L. J.


Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)
Boyd, T. C.
Champion, A. J.


Benn, Hn. Wedgwood (Bristol) S.E.)
Braddook, Mrs. Elizabeth
Chapman, W. D.


Benson, G.
Brockway, A. F.
Chetwynd, G. R.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Brought on, Dr. A. D. D.
Clunie, J.







Coldrick, W.
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Probert, A. R.


Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)
Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech (Wakefield)
Pryde, D. J.


Collins, V. J. (Shoreditch &amp; Finsbury)
Jones, David (The Hartlepools)
Randall, H. E.


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Rankin, John


Cove, W. G.
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Reeves, J.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Reid, William


Cronin, J. D.
Kenyon, C.
Rhodes, H.


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Lawson, G. M.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Ross, William


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Lewis, Arthur
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Delargy, H. J.
Lindgren, G. S.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Dodds, N. N.
Lipton, Marcus
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Dye, S.
Logan, D. G.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Snow, J. W.


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
McGhee, H. G.
Sorensen, R. W.


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
McInnes, J.
Sparks, J. A.


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Stones, W. (Consett)


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
McLeavy, Frank
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Fernyhough, E.
MacDermot, Niall
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)


Fienburgh, W.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)


Finch, H. J.
Mahon, Simon
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Fletcher, Eric
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Sylvester, C. O.


Forman, J. C.
Mason, Roy
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Mellish, R. J.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.

Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Gibson, C. w.
Messer, Sir F.
Timmons, J.


Gooch, E. G.
Mitchison, G. R.
Tomney, F.


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P, C.
Monslow, W.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Greenwood, Anthony
Moody, A. S.
Usborne, H. C.


Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Morrison, Rt. Hn. Herbert (Lewis'm, S.)
Viant, S. P.


Grey, C. F.
Mort, D. L.
Warbey, W. N.


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Moss, R.
Weitzman, D.


Hale, Leslie
Moyle, A.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Hall. Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Hamilton, W. W.
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
West, D. G.


Hannan, W.
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. (Derby, S.)
Wheeldon, W. E.


Hayman, F. H.
Oliver, G. H.
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Herbison, Miss M.
Oram, A. E.
Wilkins, W. A.


Hobson, C. R.
Orbach, M.
Williams, David (Neath)


Holman, P.
Oswald, T.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)


Holmes, Horace
Owen, W. J,
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Hubbard, T. F.
Palmer, A. M. F.
Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)


Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Pargiter, G. A.
Winterbottom, Richard


Hunter, A. E.
Parker, J.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Parkin, B. T.
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Pearson, A.
Zilliacus, K.


Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Pentland, N.



Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Plummer, Sir Leslie
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Popplewell, E.
Mr. J. T. Price and Mr. Short.


Jeger, Mrs. Lena(Holbn &amp; St. Pncs, S.)
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3.—(RATING LIABILITY OF AREA GAS BOARDS.)

Mr. Mitchison: I beg to move, in page 3, line 15, to leave out from "there-under" to the end of the Clause and to add:
(2) For any rate period as aforesaid the said section, the said Schedule and the last foregoing subsection shall have effect as if references to the manufacture of gas in the said section and the said Schedule included references to the purification of gas:
Provided that for the purposes of apportionment and allocation under sub-paragraph (3) of paragraph 4 of the said Schedule a therm purified shall be treated as one-half (or such other fraction as the Minister may generally

or in any particular case direct) of a therm manufactured.
This is an Amendment which, as far as I can see, will not affect the total liability of an area gas board, but it will have some effect upon the distribution of the rate result among the local authorities concerned. The liability of an area gas board to pay rates to a rating authority is based, first, on the sale of gas in the area and, secondly, if there is any manufacture of gas in the area, on that manufacture.
For the present purpose, I need not trouble the Committee with the details of the rather complicated Schedule which lays this down. That is the position, and, therefore, an authority which not only has, as is usual, gas being sold in its area but also gas manufactured in its area does better out of the area gas board than an


authority which only has gas sold. There is a formula for combining the two forms of liability and arriving at a total.
The difficulty which arose when the 1953 Valuation for Rating Act was being discussed was this. There was a provision in the Act for manufacture, but, of course, rateable property, perhaps of considerable area so far as the actual shell of the buildings is concerned and of considerable value, may be occupied by an area gas board for purposes which are neither sale nor manufacture in the narrow sense of the words.
One particular sort of case is becoming increasingly common. I understand that in Port Talbot there is property of very considerable rateable value occupied by the gas board for the purpose of purifying industrial gas from a steel company. There is almost exactly the same sort of thing in my own constituency, where part of the former Kettering gas works is occupied by a plant which, to a very large extent at any rate, uses industrial gas from the steel works at Corby.
There is no reason to doubt that this practice has been growing with the increasing use of industrial gas for domestic lighting, heating, and so forth. So far as there is any question of general policy in it, I should have thought that there is every reason to encourage that use of a product which would otherwise be wasted. Even so, in my constituency there blazes up every week-end a quantity of industrial gas which has not been used and could not be used, known locally as the "Corby candle." I dare say that there is a "Port Talbot candle," too.
This matter was raised during the discussion of the Rating and Valuation Bill, as it then was, in July, 1955. With it there was raised another question which I will mention only to make clear what I am going to quote in a moment, the question of the storage of gas. Besides being purified, gas has to be stored; obviously, one cannot send it all out at once down the pipes. Therefore, the business of a gas producer involves manufacture; it involves, or may involve purification in the sense I have given it; and it certainly involves storage. My hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Blackburn) has on the Notice Paper an Amendment to this Amendment about that, and no doubt

he will develop any particular local point he wishes to introduce.
Both these matters were raised in 1955. The first reference was to the storage point, reported in column 240 of volume 543 of the OFFICIAL REPORT. My hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde moved to insert "or stored" after "manufactured." I need not repeat the cogent arguments adduced by him and others in the discussion. All I wish to do at the moment is to refer to what was said by the then Parliamentary Secretary, who is now Financial Secretary to the Treasury. He said how difficult it was to include storage with manufacture on the basis of the existing formula and he gave his reasons. He expressed great sympathy with the object behind the Amendment. That was in Committee.
On Report, as will be seen from c. 1217, my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) moved a somewhat similar Amendment about purification. There must have been a change in the Parliamentary Secretary at the time. The then Parliamentary Secretary said that he could
give an assurance that the question of purification was considered when the formula was under discussion"—
that is, the formula for determining liability—
and it did not take the formula-making party by surprise.
The hon. Gentleman declined to commit himself one way or another and then he continued:
For the reasons I have stated, I hope that the hon. Member for Aberavon will not press this Amendment. There will be a general review of the pool payments. when the question of gas showrooms"—
that had been raised by the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) on the same Amendment—
and other aspects of this business will be discussed. That will provide a better opportunity for dealing with this matter than attempting to tinker with the formula now.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon then said:
On the basis that there will be pooling arrangements"—
I think he meant a review of the pooling arrangements—
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment."—[OFFICIAL, REPORT, 6th July, 1955; Vol. 543. c. 1219–20.]


On that, I submit, the Government quite clearly undertook at least to review the matter and, if I may refer to the earlier discussion, to do so sympathetically. They recognised that it was a serious point and the occasion upon which they wished to look at it was the review of the pool payments. This provision, unlike Clause 1 of the Bill, is a permanent one and the Clause follows the review of the pool payments.
It did not escape my attention, or that of others of my hon. Friends, that when this Bill was brought forward by the Government nothing whatever was said about this point. I earnestly hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to assure us not merely that the matter has been reviewed and turned down, but that attention will be given to it. We have been told that the Bill cannot be amended—it is what the gas formula was said to be in the previous debate, the "sacred cow". We cannot get this change into the Bill, but will the hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that legislation will be produced with the same misguided urgency as induced the introduction of this Bill to deal with the matter?
It is no small matter. I cannot claim, in respect of my own constituency, that it is quite as serious as all that, but I have with me the figures, with which I shall not trouble the Committee, about the position in Port Talbot, where there is a very big steel works concerned and where local finances are being made extremely difficult and matters will be made worse, because this process is to be developed further, more use is to be made of this industrial gas and what is already a quite considerable piece of unfairness to these local authorities will become even more so.
6.45 p.m.
The point is that in the distribution of the rate liability in the area of a gas board, a local authority is unfairly treated. There are within its area these considerable premises from which it gets no advantage. The only distinction between such an area and an area where gas is manufactured is that part of the process, and only part, is included in the former area. There is, in fact, a provision in the same Schedule for cases where

a single gas works overlaps, as it were, from one rating authority's area into another; and this, although it is not that case, is the same sort of principle.
We have done our best to be wholly reasonable in what we have put forward. We would not claim that a therm of gas purified ought to have the same weight given to it for the purpose of assessing liability as a therm of gas manufactured. We have suggested that a proportion of one-half is about right; it ought to be treated as half. There is no practical difficulty about this—it is a question of simple arithmetic; but we have left the matter open and allowed the Minister, either now or in the future, to prescribe the proper fraction. I have not checked completely, but I think that that figure would apply to the suggestion made on behalf of the stored gas liability, if I may so term it, by the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge.
I hope I have not taken up too much of the time of the Committee on this rather tedious matter, but it represents something that ought to have been put right in the Bill or, at least, should have been clearly explained in the Bill, in accordance with what was said in July, 1955, on the 1955 Bill.

Mr. Blackburn: There is on the Notice Paper, in my name, an Amendment to the proposed Amendment which has been moved by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison). My Amendment, like that moved by my hon. and learned Friend, calls attention to the position where the formula under the Rating and Valuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1955, shows an injustice to some of the local authorities.
On the 1955 Bill, both in Committee and on Report, I moved Amendments to deal with this point about the storage of gas. Unfortunately, we were defeated in the Division Lobbies and all that I could get from the Minister was sympathy and a promise. The promise I will deal with later. As for the sympathy, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown) knows, we have a saying in Lancashire that "Sympathy without relief is like mustard without beef."

Mr. Tom Brown: Very sharp.

Mr. Blackburn: I am hoping, therefore, that we shall get a little more from


the Minister today in carrying out the promise given in 1955.
Members of the Committee will be aware that the gas industry is concentrating production in a number of units, and of course, nobody would quarrel with that. Provided that there is more efficient production we are all in favour of it. The position, however, is that works which were previously used for production are now being used for storage purposes. They occupy exactly the same area of land as they occupied when they were manufacturing units.
Before the 1955 Act, the rateable value of the works, whether used for manufacturing or not, accrued to the area in which they were situated. In 1955, a new formula was brought forward for the allocation of the money which was contributed by the area gas boards. After setting out the methods of determining the aggregate value of the undertakings, that Act provides for the apportionment of that value among the rating authorities covered by the Board.
The formula sounds rather complicated. Actually, it is not. It is this: the money is apportioned in the proportion that the number of therms supplied by the board in a rating area plus nine-tenths of the number of therms, if any, manufactured in that area bears to the total number of therms supplied by the board to the consumers in the whole area plus nine-tenths of the total number of therms manufactured in the whole of the area of the board.
Therefore, it will be seen that it is only the number of therms supplied and the number of therms manufactured which are taken into account, and there is no provision at all to cover hereditaments which formerly manufactured gas but which now are used either for ancillary purposes or for the storage of gas, coke and other residuals.
The Amendments which I moved to the Measure of 1955 were rejected by the Minister, though that rejection was accompanied by the promise to which I have referred. An Amendment was accepted, however, covering a somewhat similar principle for the London area—for the Beckton gas works. The Minister at that time adopted the very unfortunate and dangerous precedent of one law for London and another for the provinces. Despite all I could do at that

time, I could not obtain the acceptance of my Amendments.
The then Parliamentary Secretary, the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes), said that my Amendment would involve a reorganisation of the formula. I had no objection to a reorganisation of the formula, but the hon. Gentleman seemed to think it was a major task and that the Government could not, therefore, possibly undertake it. However, he did promise that the formula would be reconsidered in the general review of local government finance which was to be made by the Government.
In answering the case for another and rather wider Amendment during the consideration of the 1955 Measure in Committee, the then Parliamentary Secretary, referring to the proposal of the Government, said:
The proposal is that the pool arrangements, which involve the Transport Commission and electricity, and which, as I said at the time, do not preclude gas and would, obviously, include gas, shall be reviewed immediately after revaluation comes into force. That would be in the autumn of 1956. I am not in a position now to say whether that will involve legislation, but if it does involve legislation it will get legislation. The object would be that the revised arrangements should be operating by April, 1957."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th June, 1955; Vol. 543, c. 245.]
We have got as far as February, 1957, and there is no prospect of the revised arrangements either with or without a review of the formula in the 1955 Act being carried out.
On Report of the 1955 Measure I moved a further Amendment, as I said. By the ingenuity of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering we tried a fresh definition of gas works on a geographical basis. The Amendment was rejected, but the hon. Member for Ashford, trying, I think, to give a word of comfort to us, said:
In many of these details the formula cannot be regarded as the final solution."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th July, 1955; Vol. 543, c. 1219.]
My next quotation from the Government is also from the then Parliamentary Secretary, the hon. Member for Ashford, who, also on Report of that 1955 Measure, said:
I hope that the hon. Gentleman"—
he meant me—
to whom I gave an undertaking at an earlier stage of the proceedings, will not now press his Amendment."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th July, 1955; Vol. 543, c. 1229.]


I stress this because I want to make it quite clear to the Minister that an undertaking was given that the formula would be reviewed, and that that would be done as part of any general review of local government finance.
Last week the Minister made his long awaited statement on the general question of local government finance. It was in very, very general terms and it is difficult to know exactly what he means. He could say, "Oh, this question is covered by the general terms of my statement." This is what he said:
In addition, further changes will be made in the system of pool payments to local authorities by the nationalised industries"—
he could say that that, of course, includes the formula for the gas industry—
including the direct rating of electricity properties"—
and I hope that that means that those authorities which have electric power stations in their areas will get an increased amount, though I shall not pursue that matter now, lest perhaps the Chancellor should have to say to me that it is out of order to talk about electricity undertakings on a Clause which deals with gas—
and the separate assessment of electricity and gas showrooms …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th February, 1957; Vol. 564, c. 1083.]
Thus the statement does mention gas showrooms, but whether the question of the review of the 1955 formula is contained in those very general words about the
pool payments to local authorities by the nationalised industries".
I do not know. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to tell me when he replies to the debate.
Many people in local government will have been very disappointed by the extremely general terms of the Minister's statement. It would have been helpful if it had been more definite, and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to say the Government will carry oat the promise which was given in 1955, and that it is included in the Minister's general statement.

Mr. W. G. Cove: I understand that we are rather pressed for time, so I shall be very brief.
I want wholeheartedly to support the exhaustive and accurate case made by my

hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison). As time passes, the area which I represent here will find itself increasingly penalised because the purification of gas and the storage of gas are not included in the formula for rateable values.
However, I leave the case as it has been presented and ask this one question. Will the Minister accept a deputation from my authority to thrash out this matter in more detail? I do not wish to go into the details now, but if there is to be a major rearrangement what opportunities will authorities like mine have for presenting their case? I hope that I may have a favourable answer to that question.

7.0 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. J. R. Bevins): I hope that I may be able to help the Committee a little on this rather technical Amendment. Although a relatively unimportant proposal is embodied in the Amendment and also in the Amendment to the proposed Amendment, I am, nevertheless, aware that many local authorities, and not all of them big authorities, are very sensitive to any financial deprivations, however they arise. That is one such case.
As the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) quite rightly said, it is the practice for gas boards to pay their rates direct to the local authorities. In that respect, they are unlike the British Transport Commission and the Central Electricity Authority. The factors which determine the rateable value in any one area are the amount of gas made and sold in that area during the penultimate year. It is perfectly true that in some cases it is the practice for the gas boards to buy gas from other bodies and purify it, that is to say, they do not engage in the process of manufacture themselves.
The aim of the Amendment is that gas which is purified, as opposed to being manufactured, should be taken into account in the formula, the idea being that every therm purified should be treated as equivalent to half a therm manufactured. It is perfectly true that in some areas purification only may take place and that in existing circumstances those rating areas are likely to suffer on that account.
Again it is true, as the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Blackburn) pointed out, that there is an increasing tendency in some parts of the country to concentrate 'production, and, as storage in itself is not a factor which comes into the formula, certain local authorities are penalised.
Reference has been made to the proceedings on the Rating and Valuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill in June, 1955. I have looked up the reference to what was said by one of my predecessors at the Ministry. It is true that the impression was given to the Committee, at that time that it was the intention that these two suggestions should be considered in due course, when the Ministry had its discussions with the local authorities but, with great respect to the hon. Member for Kettering, I must recall what I said in moving the Second Reading of this Bill.
I was speaking of the contribution made by nationalised industries to local authorities, and I said that
Clauses 2 and 3 of the Bill deal exclusively with the consequences of recent revaluation, for these are the really urgent issues on which action could not wait until the completion of the more general review."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 7th February, 1957; Vol. 564, c. 631.]
Hon. Members will recall that when my right hon. Friend made his announcement to the House, on the reform of local government finance, about a week ago, he also made it plain that further consultations were to take place with both the nationalised industries and the local authorities on the future of pool payments by the nationalised industries to the local authorities.
I want to be perfectly frank with the Committee and say that before these interim proposals were embodied in the present Bill quite obviously discussions took place with representatives of nationalised industries and local authorities. But those conversations were not with the local authority associations as such. They were merely with certain gentlemen who were deputed to attend conversations with the Ministry and the nationalised industries.
We have not yet begun our full negotiations and talks with the local authority associations and the nationalised industries, and I assure the hon. and learned Member for Kettering that when

we start to do that—and we shall be doing it very soon indeed—the ideas embodied in these two Amendments will be put to them. I do not know what their reaction will be. It may be that they will be prepared to accept these ideas. I can go no further than that. I reiterate that we are fully sensitive to the claims of local authorities who feel that they have had a raw deal because of a formula which is rather too hidebound, as this may be.
The hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) asked whether my right hon. Friend would be prepared to see a deputation on this point. I am sure that I speak for my right hon. Friend when I say that we shall be only too happy, at any time, to have the fullest information possible on this topic.

Mr. T. Brown: We appreciate the Parliamentary Secretary's frankness, but he did not go quite far enough in his statement, because we had a promise in 1955 that, in the consideration which the Government were prepared to give, a new formula would be agreed upon. The local authorities have been placed in a very difficult position because of the great change that has occurred in methods of gas production and distribution. Many of the local authorities who possessed productive units, before nationalisation of the gas industry, now have only storage units. They are compelled by the rearrangement to store gas which has been produced in another part of the district or county. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will see the disadvantage in which they are placed by the non-fulfilment of the promise made by his predecessor.
I do not think that we desire to divide the Committee on this question, but we should like to have a categorical promise from the Parliamentary Secretary that this matter will be seriously considered when the Government begin to overhaul local government finance. We hope that there will not be, as we say in Lancashire, any "shenanigan," any "passing the buck," any statement that the old formula worked very well. I hope that the hon. Gentleman can give us an assurance now, remembering the words of a great man who said that it is better not to promise than to promise and not pay. The hon. Gentleman's predecessor made a promise and he is still owing.
The Parliamentary Secretary has been frank so far. We hope that that frankness will go further and that he will assure us that this matter will be overhauled when the Government reorganise local government finance.

Mr. Blackburn: We are not really very much further than we were in 1955. We have now had exactly the same promise as was given then. This is a very important matter to many small urban authorities. There are two in my constituency which previously manufactured gas, but whose undertakings are now used only for storage purposes. Those undertakings occupy exactly the same area as before and occupy land which otherwise could be used for other rate-bearing hereditaments. This is a serious matter and I hope that the Government will consider it carefully.
My final point is that whatever suggestions ultimately come forward will have to be embodied in a Bill. May I appeal to the Minister not to draw the Financial Resolution on that occasion so tightly that he prevents us from moving Amendments which we think ought to be moved?

Mr. Bevins: I made it clear when I spoke a few moments ago that I was very sensitive to the claims of some of the local authorities which were being deprived in this way. I am sure that that is true also of my right hon. Friend, so the hon. Gentleman need have no qualms on that score.
On the question asked by the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown), I cannot give a categorical assurance that this will be incorporated in the legislation on local government finance which will come to the House in due course. I can assure him, however, that when we have our talks with the nationalised industries and the local authority associations, this proposal will be put to them in a positive form.

Mr. Blackburn: It was because the hon. Gentleman is not prepared to give such an assurance that I asked for one about the Financial Resolution.

Mr. Mitchison: Considering what I think of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite and what they really think of me, we may be too trusting in saying that we

will not divide the Committee. I may tell the hon. Gentleman at once that we had every intention of doing so unless we received a satisfactory assurance. His position is somewhat marginal, but perhaps that is as far as he can go.
This does not really concern the area gas boards very much. Their total liability is the same, and it is not really a matter of the local authority associations taking it much further. Probably the majority might be against it because they might themselves suffer a small reduction. It is really a matter, I suggest, where the responsible Minister has to make up his mind as to what is fair.
Hand on heart, without making any point about it—and it is not my own constituency interest, which is very small in this matter—I honestly say that I feel that the manufacturers of gas are getting away with a bit more than they deserve, as against the purifiers and the storers of gas, and that it would be fair, and, on the whole, right in the public interest, because of the development in gas manufacture, to give the purifiers and storers "summat", as they say in Lancashire.
On what has been said by the hon. Gentleman, and on a faith in the rectitude of the right hon. Gentleman, which, I assure him, is temporary, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4.—(EFFECT OF RELIEF OF CHARITIES, ETC., ON RATEABLE VALUE FOR PURPOSES OF EXCHEQUER EQUALISATION GRANTS, ETC.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Hamilton Kerr: This Clause affects my constituency, the City of Cambridge. We are grateful for the concession it provides in terms of the equalisation grant, but I would like to recall that my right hon. Friend the Minister, during the Second Reading debate, said the Clause "restores fairness where there is unintended unfairness."
This unintended unfairness bore with extra weight upon my constituency for two reasons. First, college properties cover a large part of the most valuable rateable area. Secondly, Cambridge, unlike Oxford, cannot draw large


revenues from industrial areas. Therefore, this unintended unfairness takes the unfortunate form of about £230 extra on the rates, or a rate of about 2s.
While we welcome the concession contained in this Clause, I have been asked by the Cambridgeshire County Council and the Cambridge City Council to protest in the strongest possible terms against the fact that the concession starts only in 1957 to 1958 and not in 1956 to 1957.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Roderic Bowen: I wish to associate myself with the protestations made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Hamilton Kerr). This Clause is not of general interest, but it is of real concern to the City of Cambridge and to the Counties of Cardigan and Caernarvon. I am sure that if my hon. Friend the Member for Caernarvon (Mr. G. Roberts) were not unavoidably absent, he would associate himself with the remarks made by the hon. Member for Cambridge and those which I propose to make.
The hon. Gentleman referred to what the Minister said about unintended unfairness. There can be no doubt that the operation of Section 8 on the amount of rate equalisation grant receivable by Cardigan was unfair to an extent which placed a real burden upon that local authority. Some local authorities are better able to bear burdens than others. I will give a few figures to make it clear that the injustice referred to by the Minister is a very real one for Cardigan.
The reduction of equalisation grant due to Section 8 losses for 1956–57, in the case of my county, was £36,888. That represents a loss due to the operation of Section 8 in equalisation grant alone of 8 per cent. of the total rateable value in the county and, in terms of rate poundage, amounts to 1s. 8d. That position is aggravated by the fact that we have already lost over £100,000 in equalisation grant and that, despite the fact that our rateable values have increased by 156 per cent., it has been possible to reduce the county precept by only 1s. 6d., so that the loss in 1956–57, amounting to £36,888, is a serious matter for the local authority.
I gathered from the observations of the Parliamentary Secretary, during the Second Reading debate, that what will happen when this Clause comes into operation is that in respect of 1957–58 the

equalisation grant will be increased by about £13,500. While that increase is welcome, it does not go anything like far enough to make up the loss we shall suffer by the operation of Section 8, and that is a matter of great disappointment to the local authority.
Quite apart from the effect of this on the county as a whole, it has a particularly damaging effect upon the Borough of Aberystwyth. The properties in Aberystwyth coming within Section 8 represent 20 per cent. of the total rateable values. The borough provides a home for two of our national institutions. The effect of all this is that, while there is an average increase of 156 per cent. in the rateable value, the rates of the borough are still 21s. 3d. in the £.
I hope that the Minister will have something to say about the discrepancies between the losses suffered as a result of the operation of Section 8 and the additions to be made in 1957–58. The fact that Clause 4 is not retrospective to cover 1956–57 is a cause of dissatisfaction to the local authority.

Mr. Mitchison: I want to say a word from a slightly different point of view. We are considering the effect of Section 8 of the 1955 Act, which has given trouble in various ways. There have been uncertainties about it, and there have been some very remarkable differences of practice.
I believe very much in discretion being given to local authorities, and part, at any rate, of the relief which may be given under Section 8 is discretionary. However, there comes a moment sometimes when one wonders whether the section really is working out all right and whether there is not something wrong with its terms.
I am raising this matter on behalf of one of my hon. Friends who represents a Leicester constituency; his utterances in the House are rather limited. Apparently, there is a society for providing convalescent homes in Leicester and the county. It is not open to quite everybody, although it is on a fairly broad basis. There is, consequently, some question about its exact character, but I will not go into that any further.
The society's offices are in Leicester, and they obtain relief under Clause 1. The society has three convalescent homes,


two in adjacent rural districts and one in an adjacent urban district, and the local authorities concerned are not very large ones. The local authorities have refused relief to the homes. Some pithy comments appeared in the Leicester Mercury under the heading:
Rate relief for golf but not for homes.
Golf is provided for, along with other sports, under Section 8 (1). I do not ask the Minister to give any undertaking about this other than to look at the terms of the section and consider whether he thinks that they really effect the purpose that we all had in mind and whether this may not be a case where he ought to issue a circular containing—not directions, because he could not very well do that—some advice to local authorities, for I am sure that many of them would welcome it. It does not seem right that the Clause should have the rather anomalous result of relieving golf clubs, but not convalescent homes.

Mr. Dye: I wish to bring out a little more clearly than has so far been done one aspect of the effects of the Clause. The County Councils Association felt that there was an injustice because the equalisation grant for Cambridgeshire was calculated on the basis that the county had received rates for all the college property. Because of that calculation, the Treasury paid less in the current financial year to Cambridge and Cambridgeshire than it would otherwise have done. Thus, the Treasury has had the advantage of this anomaly in the current year. If the Government wish to rectify the matter, it is only fair that the provisions should be made retrospective to cover the current year.
In the case of shopkeepers, and others under Clause 1, there can be no question of retrospection, because it is a matter only as between different ratepayers. However, in this instance, the Government have gained an advantage from the anomaly, and the view of the County Councils Association is that what the authorities have lost should be made good. Therefore, the provisions of the Clause should date from April, 1956. I have heard no sound reasons why that should not be done. The Government should do justice with a gallant heart.
The hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Hamilton Kerr) has expressed his views on the subject. It seems to be a lapse on the part of the hon. and learned Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Gerald Howard) that he is not present to speak for the county. However, I know the county very well indeed, and I urge the Minister to say that the injustice should be put right by dating these provisions back to the beginning of the current financial year.

Mr. Bevins: I am obliged to my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Hamilton Kerr) and the other hon. Gentlemen for raising this matter. One of the points made is that the relief to the three local authorities which have been mentioned ought to be made retrospective to the financial year 1956–57 instead of beginning in the next financial year. The second point is that the compensation which is being afforded to these local authorities by way of equalisation grant is not complete compensation for what they have lost as a result of Section 8 of the 1955 Act.
Local authorities and individuals who think that they have suffered an injustice always like the remedy to be dated back to the time it started. However, making matters of this sort retrospective in operation is contrary to the attitude taken by Parliament. Only twelve months ago there were substantial changes in the equalisation grant payments to local authorities, and these were made because a number of important local authorities had been suffering from a sense of injustice for a long time. It might have been suggested that the operation of those changes should have been made retrospective, but that principle was not accepted.
With all due respect to my hon. Friend, one could equally argue that the remedy to the injustice which we on this side of the Committee think has existed in the case of shopkeepers and commercial people during the last twelve months ought to be made retrospective to the beginning of the current financial year; but, of course, that is not proposed in Clause 1. Therefore, sorry as I am, I cannot hold out any promise of this act of mercy being performed retrospectively for the three authorities concerned.
7.30 p.m.
On the extent to which the equalisation grant compensates these three local authorities, the situation is, of course, that the equalisation grant as at present devised can take account of the virtual loss of rateable value of those local authorities, but I do not pretend that they are getting compensation for what they have lost as a result of Section 8 of the Rating and Valuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act. 1955. As my right hon. Friend has said, we are in the process of our talks and deliberations and a good deal of further consideration on the future formula of the equalisation grant.
I hope that the hon. and learned Member for Cardigan (Mr. Bowen) and my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge will not think that the present pattern of equalisation grants is here in perpetuity, but I am sorry that for the moment I cannot offer a promise of additional relief, other than that afforded under Clause 4.

Mr. Mitchison: Will not the hon. Gentleman reply to my question about the effect of Section 8 of the previous Act, which appears to give relief to golf clubs but not to convalescent homes?

Mr. Bevins: I am sorry, I did not understand that the hon. and learned Member wanted a reply to his question at this stage.
The question of convalescent homes owned by friendly societies has been the subject of a decision of the courts, as he probably knows. I do not think that it arises under Clause 4, but I am informed by my right hon. Friend that his predecessor promised to re-examine Section 8 of the earlier Act and I assure the hon. and learned Member that, in due course, that will be done.

Mr. Mitchison: I hope that that point will be borne in mind when that is done.

Mr. Bevins: That point will be borne in mind, although I cannot give an undertaking about what will happen.

Mr. Hamilton Kerr: When will this review of equalisation grants take place?

Mr. Bevins: It is part of the general view of local government finance, which is now under way. Discussions with the local authority associations will be begun very shortly. When they will be finalised I am not in a position to say at the

moment. We are pressing on with all expedition.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 5 and 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, without Amendment.

7.35 p.m.

Mr. Bevins: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I should like to make one or two very brief comments. The first is on the very rapid progress which the House has made in consideration of this small, but, none-the-less contentious Bill. I wish to say, speaking for my right hon. Friend, that we are indeed grateful for the co-operation which we have had from Members on both sides of the House. After all, the Bill had its Second Reading as recently as 7th February, its Committee stage was started on 14th February, and its Third Reading takes place today, 20th February. In the ordinary course of events, my right hon. Friend would have been very glad to have taken the Bill in Committee upstairs, but, as the hon. and learned Member and many of his friends already know, many of us have been preoccupied upstairs with another Bill which is also of a slightly contentious character. My right hon. Friend is grateful for the co-operation of the party opposite and of his hon. Friends on this side of the House.

7.36 p.m.

Mr. Mitchison: I shall not repeat the very strong and forceful arguments which were put by my hon. Friends and myself against Clause 1. If it is co-operation to say that the Clause is ill-timed, unjust, ill-considered and wholly wrong, then, indeed, I am a very cordial co-operator with the hon. Gentleman. There really are some limits to the misuse of Parliamentary courtesy, and I feel bound to say that.
As regards progress on the Bill; of course, rushing the Bill through the House has been most successfully accomplished by the simple device of intimating to the House beforehand that whatever was said, no Amendment would be accepted. In those circumstances, it is perfectly clear that we could not have had an adequate Report stage, and those who, as it were, go towards this slightly


different form of guillotine, do not wish to have hanging over their heads that kind of procedure, and they shy away from the somewhat useless struggle. To show the degree of our co-operation and our dislike of Clause 1 we propose to divide on the Third Reading. As to the timing, on this side of the House we keep our promises, and we promised the Government that we would let them have the Third Reading by eight o'clock.

7.38 p.m.

Mr. F. Harris: On the subject of cooperation, I join with the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison). My co-operation would have been much more complete if industrial rerating had been included in the provisions of the Bill, not on a 50 per cent. basis, but on a complete basis.
I am sure that all the increases in rates which will be levied throughout the country in the very near future will be blamed on the Bill. I tried very hard to make that point, and I have certainly taken all the care I can in Croydon to ensure that there is no misunderstanding in that great town. Nevertheless, I am absolutely certain that everybody will assume when increased rates are levied that it is all due to the fact that the poor shopkeepers are getting relief to which they are not entitled and that everybody else is paying for them.
I should like to make clear that I hope it will become obvious that the rate increases will not be due solely to the Bill, although partly due to the Bill, but due to the many other demands which will be put upon local authorities in the forthcoming financial year. I hope that that point will be made abundantly clear when

the time comes. I certainly do not want to detain the passage of the Bill, which I feel to be the meeting of an honourable undertaking which I am pleased the Government gave.

7.39 p.m.

Mr. Grime Finlay: I should like to say "Thank you" to the Minister for the Bill. I know that hon. Members opposite consider that what has been done is a great concession to the banks and other large office organisations and large companies, but the stark facts are—and it is well to recall them—that before revaluation in 1956, shops bore 11 per cent. of the total rateable burden; under the new assessments that rose to 14 per cent., and, as a result of the Bill, it will be down to 12 per cent. I say that in spite of the impatience of the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison).

Mr. Mitchison: It was not impatience, but amusement. I seem to have heard it before, perhaps when the hon. Member was not in the Chamber.

Mr. Finlay: That may be so, but if I had not said it, or if one of my hon. Friends had not said it, the hon. and learned Member would have been reproaching us for not speaking.
I want to say "Thank you" to the Minister on behalf of the shopkeepers in my constituency, who, to a great extent, are small shopkeepers. They have made it clear that they appreciate what has been done, and I want to make it absolutely certain that that is understood.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:

The House divided: Ayes 199, Noes 162.

Division No. 68.]
AYES
[7.40 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Body, R. F.
Corfield, Capt. F. V.


Aitken W. T.
Bossom, Sir Alfred
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)
Crouch, R. F.


Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Boyle, Sir Edward
Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)


Arbuthnot, John
Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Cunningham, Knox


Armstrong, C. W.
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Currie, G. B. H.


Atkins, H. E.
Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Dance, J. C, C.


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M,
Brooman-White, R. C.
Deedes, W. F.


Baldwin, A. E.
Bryan, P.
Digby, Simon Wingfield


Balniel, Lord
Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.


Barber, Anthony
Burden, F. F. A.
Doughty, C. J. A.


Barlow, Sir John
Butcher, Sir Herbert
du Cann, E. D. L.


Barter, John
Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Campbell, Sir David
Errington, Sir Eric


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Carr, Robert
Fell, A.


Bidgood, J. C.
Channon, Sir Henry
Finlay, Graeme


Biggs-Davison, J. A.
Cooper, A. E.
Fletcher-Cooke, C.


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Cooper-Key, E. M.
Fraser, Sir Ian(M'cmbe &amp; Lonsdale)


Bishop, F. P.
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Garner-Evans, E. H.




George, J. C. (Pollok)
Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)
Redmayne, M,


Gibson-Watt, D.
Linstead, Sir H. N.
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Glover, O.
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Ridsdale, J. E.


Godber, J. B.
Longden, Gilbert
Rippon, A. G. F.


Gower, H. R.
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Robertson, Sir David


Graham, Sir Fergus
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R. (Nantwich)
McAdden, S. J.
Roper, Sir Harold


Green, A.
Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
McKibbin, A. J.
Russell, R. S.


Gurden, Harold
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)
McLaughlin, Mrs. P.
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Maclean, Fitzroy (Lancaster)
Shepherd, William


Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)
Macleod, Rt. Hn. lain (Enfield, W.)
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbr'gh, W.)


Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
MacLeod, John (Ross &amp; Cromarty)
Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)


Harvey, Air Cdre. A, V. (Macclesfd)
Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)


Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.
Maddan, Martin
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Hesketh, R. F.
Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)
Storey, S.


Hill, John (S. Norfolk)
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
Summers, Sir Spencer


Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)


Holland-Martin, C. J.
Marshall, Douglas
Teeling, W.


Hornby, R. P.
Mathew, R.
Temple, J. M.


Horobin, Sir Ian
Maude, Angus
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence
Maudling, Rt. Hon. R,
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Howard, John (Test)
Mawby, R. L.
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Milligan, Rt. Hon. W, R.
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R.(Croydon, S.)


Hughes-Young, M. H. C.
Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Hulbert, Sir Norman
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)


Hurd, A. R.
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Vane, W. M. F.


Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry
Nicholls, Harmar
Vickers, Miss J. H.




Wade, D. W.


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. &amp; Chr'ch)
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)


Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Nugent, G. R. H.
Wall, Major Patrick


Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Ward, Rt. Hon. C. R. (Worcester)


Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Joseph, Sir Keith
Osborne, C.
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Kaberry, D.
Page, R. G.
Whitelaw, W.S.I.(Penrith &amp; Border)


Keegan, D.
Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Kerby, Capt. H. B.
Partridge, E.
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Kerr, H. W.
Peyton, J. W. W.
Wills, G. (Bridgwater)


Kimball, M.
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Kirk, P. M.
Pitman, I. J.
Wood, Hon. R.


Lambert, Hon. G.
Pott, H. P.
Woollam, John Victor


Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Powell, J. Enoch
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Leavey, J. A.
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)



Leburn, W. G.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Ramsden, J. E.
Mr. Legh and Mr. Wakefield.


Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)
Rawlinson, Peter





NOES


Ainsley, J. W.
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Cronin, J. D.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Cullen, Mrs. A.
Hunter, A. E.


Awbery, S. S.
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Davles, Harold (Leek)
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)


Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)
Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.


Benson, G.
de Freitas, Geoffrey
Janner, B.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Delargy, H. J.
Jeger, George (Goole)


Blackburn, F.
Dye, S.
Jeger, Mrs. Lena(Holbn &amp; St. Pncs, S)


Blenkinsop, A.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Johnson, James (Rugby)


Blyton, W. R.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech (Wakefield)


Boardman, H.
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Jones, David (The Hartlepools)


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)


Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.)
Fernyhough, E.
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)


Bowles, F. G.
Finch, H. J.
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)


Boyd, T. C.
Fletcher, Eric
Kenyon, C.


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Forman, J. C.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.


Brockway, A. F.
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Lawson, G. M.


Brought on, Dr. A. D. D.
Gibson, C. W.
Lee, Frederick (Newton)


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Gooch, E. G.
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Greenwood, Anthony
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)


Burke, W. A.
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Lewis, Arthur


Burton, Mist F. E.
Grey, C. F.
Lindgren, G. S.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Hale, Leslie
Logan, D. G.


Champion, A. J.
Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
McGhee, H. G.


Chapman, W. D.
Hamilton, W. W.
McInnes, J.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Hannan, W.
McKay, John (Wallsend)


Clunie, J.
Hayman, F. H.
McLeavy, Frank


Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)
Herbison, Miss M.
MacDermot, Niall


Collins, V. J. (Shoreditch &amp; Finsbury)
Hobson, C. R.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)
Mahon, Simon


Cove, W. G.
Hubbard, T. F.
Mason, Roy







Mellish, R, J.
Reeves, J.
Tomney, F.


Mitchison, G. R.
Reid, William
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Monslow, W.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Usborne, H. C.


Moody, A. S.
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Warbey, W. N.


Morrison, Rt. Hn. Herbert (Lewis'm, S.)
Ross, William
Weitzman, D.


Mort, D. L.
Short, E. W.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Moss, R.
Silverman, Julius (Aston)
West, D. C.


Moyle, A.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Wheeldon, W. E.


Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Wilkins, W. A.


Oliver, C. H.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Williams, David (Neath)


Oswald, T.
Snow, J. W.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)


Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Sorensen, R. W.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Palmer, A. M. F.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Parker, J.
Sparks, O. A.
Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)


Pearson, A.
Stones, W. (Consett)
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Pentland, N.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.
Winterbottom, Richard


Plummer, Sir Leslie
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Popplewell, E.
Sylvester, G. O.
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Zilliacus, K.


Probert, A. R.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)



Pryde, D. J.
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Randall, H. E.
Timmons, J.
Mr. J. T. Price and Mr. Holmes

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

PUBLIC TRUSTEE (FEES) BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

7.52 p.m.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Harry Hylton-Foster): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The office of Public Trustee was established by statute in 1906 but, as the House is aware, a number of things have happened since then. The Public Trustee has given, under various holders of the appointment, notable and sympathetic public service to a number of people, particularly in relation to small trusts, and has established a considerable goodwill. Last year he was administering more than 17,500 trusts at an estimated total value of £250 million.
His business has been followed by two progressive bugbears, in the first place the ever-increasing cost in salaries, pensions and overhead expenses, of giving such a service to the public; and, on the other hand, the increasing competition from other corporate trustees, chiefly banks and insurances companies, who enter ever more and more into the business of administering trusts. Then, of course, modern taxation has made it much more difficult to hand down the savings of a working life, so that much fewer trusts are created. I would also remind the House, if hon. Members need reminding, that the Public Trustee has, by Statute, to be self-supporting in a monetary sense.
Amidst these adverse trends the previous Lord Chancellor appointed a Committee of Inquiry, in March, 1954, into the Public Trustee Office, the terms of reference being:
To consider the work of the Public Trustee and to advise whether any changes should be made in his functions or methods of business, in the organisation of his office or in the financial conditions under which he operates.
The Committee worked under the Chairmanship of Sir Maurice Holmes, and did its work with extreme dispatch and efficiency. I know that the House would wish me to express our gratitude to these busy and distinguished persons for the services which they rendered.
The Committee reported in May, 1956, and among the most important of its recommendations was that improvements should be made in the method of charging fees in the Public Trustee Office. That is the concern of the Bill, which confers powers to enable a new system to be introduced. Anyone who has looked at the existing fees orders would, I suspect, agree with me in thinking that they provide for extremely diverse fees and are distastefully complicated. I have no wish to trouble the House with the details, but I will merely say that they involve in some cases an elaborate calculation in order to assess what the fees should be; and in the context an elaborate calculation is expensive.
The aims of the new system which we would seek to introduce in pursuance of the Bill would be to secure greater fairness in the incidence on parties of the fees, and to make the administration more simple by cutting out fees which are complicated and expensive to assess


and collect. The Committee thought that the method which would produce the most equitable results as between the life tenant and the remainder-man of these trusts was to have two main fees, both payable out of capital, an acceptance fee, as now, and a composite management fee for the administration of the trust, to be payable out of capital and to be fixed annually at a rate sufficient to meet the estimated expenses of the office for the financial year in question.
That recommendation we have accepted, but legislation is necessary to put it into effect because of the requirement that the fee should be paid out of capital. At present the Public Trustee has to decide in relation to each particular trust, on the ordinary general equitable principles applicable in these cases, whether the fee has to fall upon capital or on income, and what is required is legislative power to enable him to charge the new management fee to capital in every case.
The basic operation of the Bill is performed by Clause 1, of which subsection (2) provides, in effect, that every future fees order made after the passing of the Bill
shall indicate, with respect to every fee fixed by the order, whether it is to be payable out of capital or out of income.
Subsection (3) gives the Public Trustee power, notwithstanding that enactment, to say that a fee shall be paid out of income instead, in certain cases. The object is to meet cases in which it is obviously right that the fee should be paid out of income. The kind of case one would have in mind is where the trust consists solely of an annuity and there is no capital, or where we should have to realise a capital asset at a disadvantage in order to meet the fee. That power is conferred upon the Public Trustee only with the consent in writing of the person who is beneficially entitled to the income where that person is of full age.
Clause 2 is transitional. It requires the Public Trustee to go on charging the existing fee in certain cases where it is obviously right to do so, as where the matter is governed by an order of the court or where the Public Trustee has entered into some arrangement or agreement with regard to his fees.
This is a highly technical matter and I cannot conceive that the House would desire me to trouble it with further details; but I am at the disposition of hon. Members should any point arise which would require information or explanation.

7.58 p.m.

Sir Frank Soskice: The Solicitor-General, in a short, crisp speech, has introduced this endearing little Bill to the notice of the House. I feel that both sides of the House would accept that its purpose should be commended and that it is necessary for the proper administration of this Department. The House would also desire to join in the tribute which the right hon. and learned Gentleman paid to Sir Maurice Holmes and his colleagues for the valuable report they have produced.
I would not seek to embark upon an extensive inquiry into the framework or structure of the Bill, because its purpose is obvious. It enables the management fee to be substituted for the present system of fee charging. That seems to me an improvement upon the present method. It is simpler and more equitable.
I would put two questions to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I have no doubt that the Government have given thought to a recommendation of the Holmes Committee which has not, as I understand, been embodied within the scope of the Bill. That recommendation relates to the cancellation of the withdrawal fee. The Holmes Committee expressed the view that the withdrawal fee is at the moment very inequitable, and gave reasons. Those reasons have, apparently, not commended themselves to the Government and, I understand, the withdrawal fee will still be charged.
I gathered from what was said by a noble Lord in another place that, in future, it will be charged upon a somewhat reduced basis. I would be grateful if the right hon. and learned Gentleman would say a word about the withdrawal fee and tell us the reasons which led the Government to the conclusion that that particular recommendation of the Holmes Committee should not be adopted. I should be grateful if he would enlighten the House on that aspect of the Bill.
The only other question I want to put is whether we are to take it that the


Government have decided not to accept any of the other recommendations of the Holmes Committee? The Holmes Committee does not limit its recommendations solely to the basis upon which fees are to be charged, but it does make other recommendations on a rather wider plane as to the future scope and basis upon which the Department should be run. I take it from the fact that the Bill is limited to its present form that the Government have formed the view that, at any rate for the present, none of the other recommendations ought to be accepted. I should be very grateful if the right hon. and learned Gentleman could say a word in answer to those two questions.
Subject to that, speaking for myself, I should certainly agree with the view of the right hon. and learned Gentleman that the Bill should be accepted on Second Reading.

8.2 p.m.

The Solicitor-General: I am very glad to seek to answer the questions asked by the right hon. and learned Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice). Perhaps I might deal with the second one first. The most compact way of doing that, if hon. Members have available the Report of the Holmes Committee is to ask them to refer to the summary of recommendations, on page 21. I can tell the House about the recommendations in their entirety in that context.
The first was a recommendation that the Property Advisers Section of the office should be abolished by stages. We have not thought fit to accept the recommendation for total abolition, but a reduction of the Section has been planned. The second was for the amalgamation of the Manchester office with the London office. That has been done. The third was for modification of the regulations governing the audit of trust accounts. That has been done. The next related to an advertisement programme to make better known the advantages of the Public Trustee services. As to that, I can only say that it is under consideration. The right hon. and learned Member and the House will appreciate that it is a rather delicate matter not to overdo the adver-

tising and, at the same time, to reveal the services which are available.
The next recommendation dealt with the matter with which the Bill is concerned. There was a recommendation that there should be an Exchequer grant to cover the loss incurred in administering estates of low value. The right hon. and learned Member will remember that in May last year it was announced in the House that we were unable to accept that. The last recommendation related to the letting at an economic rent of so much of the London office as is surplus to requirements. That has already been done.
I am greatly obliged to the right hon. and learned Member for mentioning the question of withdrawal fees. It is true that the Committee recommended the abolition of withdrawal fees as inequitable and that we have found ourselves unable to accept that recommendation. That was for the very simple reason that, after very careful consideration, we came to the conclusion that the only practicable way of ensuring the equitable distribution of the burden of fees would be to have some kind of withdrawal fee. The un-remunerative estate from the point of view of the Public Trustee is one administered by his office for a short time.
If trusts which are administered only for a very short time were to pay only the acceptance and management fee they would be administered at a loss. Since the Public Trustee has a statutory obligation to pay his own way, "at a loss" means at the expense of other trusts and other beneficiaries. In the end, he would have to raise the other fees inequitably to meet the loss. For that reason it seemed to us that the best way to avoid inequity was to retain a withdrawal fee. On the other hand, the intention is to reduce it from the 2 per cent. at which it now stands.

Sir F. Soskice: I am very much obliged to the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Colonel J. H. Harrison.]

Committee Tomorrow.

WAYS AND MEANS

Considered in Committee.

[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

ELECTRICITY (INCOME TAX AND PROFITS TAX)

8.6 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. J. Enoch Powell): I beg to move,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to provide for the dissolution of the Central Electricity Authority and the esablishment of a Central Electricity Generating Board and an Electricity Council, it is expedient to provide, as from the date on which the said Authority is dissolved by that Act,—

(a) that, for the purposes of the enactments relating to income tax, and of the enactments relating to the profits tax, the said Council shall be treated as carrying on a trade or business;
(b) that those enactments shall have effect, and shall be deemed always to have had effect, as if the trade or business carried on by the said Authority at any time before the said date had been the trade or business of the said Council, and as if any reference in those enactments to the said Authority were a reference to the said Council;
(c) that those enactments shall have effect, in relation to any time on or after the said date, as if any reference to an Area Board established under the Electricity Act, 1947, included a reference to the said Central Electricity Generating Board;
(d) that, for the purposes of the enactments relating to income tax, the trade carried on by the said Authority shall not be treated as permanently discontinued on the said date, nor shall a new trade be treated as set up and commenced on that date by the said Central Electricity Generating Board or the said Council,

so however that for the purposes of the operation of the said enactments in accordance with the preceding paragraphs anything done by, to or in relation to the said Authority shall be treated as from the said date as if it had been done by, to or in relation to the said Council.
Perhaps it would be of use if I said a few words in explanation of this Ways and Means Resolution, which in fact has a very simple purpose. It is to enable what is little more than a drafting defect in the Electricity Bill to be corrected.
It arose in the following way. As the law stands at present the Central Electricity Authority is responsible for paying Income Tax and Profits Tax for the whole undertaking and has powers under the Electricity Act, 1947, of recovering

accordingly from the area boards. The Electricity Bill as it stands places the Generating Board in this respect, as in many others, in the place of the Central Electricity Authority, but it also repeals—by the second part of the Fourth Schedule—the powers to recoup from the area boards. That clearly results in an impossible position. The sensible solution, obviously, is to enable the new Electricity Council to step into the shoes of the old Central Electricity Authority with similar obligations in respect of tax and with the same powers of recoupment. This Ways and Means Resolution, if the Committee passes it, will enable the Standing Committee which is considering the Bill, if it thinks fit, to make an Amendment accordingly.

Sir Frank Soskice: We are grateful to the Minister for explaining the purpose of this Resolution. I hope that it achieves the purpose which the Government have in mind. I wish to call attention to the fact that paragraph (a) treats the Council as if it is carrying on a trade or business. Of course it does not treat it as if it has an income, because it has not. I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would point to that part of the Resolution which has the effect which he indicated as being the object he seeks to achieve, namely, the effect of vesting in the Council the same powers that the Central Electricity Authority had to recoup itself by a levy on the area boards.
Certainly paragraph (a) does not do that, (b) would seem not to do it, but conceivably it is (c) that does it.

Mr. Powell: Mr. Powell indicated dissent.

Sir F. Soskice: The Minister shakes his head. I should be grateful if as a matter of exposition he would make clear to the Committee exactly what words in the Resolution have the somewhat drastic effect—in a somewhat concealed form having regard to the wording—of vesting in the new Council power to recoup itself which the old Electricity Authority possessed.

Mr. Powell: The explanation is that it is not necessary to have a Ways and Means Resolution to furnish the powers of recoupment, which are internal affairs of the undertaking and not matters of taxation as between the Inland Revenue


and the undertaking. It is not necessary, therefore, for that amendment to be paved by a Ways and Means Resolution.

Sir F. Soskice: I follow what the hon. Gentleman says, that it is not necessary for that to be done in the Ways and Means Resolution, but could he be so good as to indicate in what Clause and what subsection of a Clause in the Bill at present being considered in Committee power is vested in the Electricity Council to recoup itself from the area boards which previously was possessed by the Central Electricity Authority? The Minister must know.
We should like to be assured that this Council, which so far as we can see is wholly deprived of income and completely stripped of any possibility of earning income, is given the necessary power. We should like to be assured that if it is not to be found in the terms of this Resolution, the power to recoup itself is to be found in some—and if so what?—provision of the Bill being considered upstairs.

Mr. Powell: It is not to be found in the Bill as it stands at the moment; hinc illae lachrymae. It is because of that omission that a good deal of this operation is necessary. The existing power contained in Section 41, as amended, of the Electricity Act, 1947, is repealed by the Second Schedule of the Bill and nothing is put in its place. The Standing Committee will be able to put something in its place, if it thinks fit.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolution to be reported.

Report to be received Tomorrow; Committee to sit again Tomorrow.

ELECTRICITY [MONEY] (No. 2)

Considered in Committee of the whole House under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees).—[Queen's Recommendation signified.]

[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to provide for the dissolution of the Central Electricity Authority and the establishment of a Central Electricity Generating Board and an Electricity Council, it is expedient to authorise any increase in the sums which may be required—

(a) to be issued out of the Consolidated Fund for enabling advances to be made by the Minister of Power, or
(b) to be raised by the Treasury, or
(c) to be paid into the Exchequer, or
(d) to be issued out of the Consolidated Fund and applied in redeeming or paying off debt or paying interest,

being an increase attributable to any provisions of that Act for amending section forty-two of the Finance Act, 1956, by substituting a reference to the said Council for the reference to the said Authority in subsection (2) of that section.—[Mr. Maudling.]

8.12 p.m.

Sir Frank Soskice: I wish to ensure that we shall have a word of explanation of the purpose of this second Money Resolution.

The Paymaster-General (Mr. Reginald Maudling): I was awaiting the appropriate moment, Sir Charles.
The necessity for this Money Resolution arises from the proposal to advance the vesting date for the new Electricity Council from 1st April to 1st January, 1958. Section 42 of the Finance Act, 1956, provides that the Treasury can advance money to the electricity supply industry up to 31st March, 1958, but of course only to the existing Central Electricity Authority. If we do not have a Money Resolution of this kind we shall find that if the new Electricity Council comes into being on 1st January, it will have no power to obtain money from the Treasury, while the Treasury will have power to lend money only to an authority which has ceased to exist.
The effect of the Money Resolution is to enable us to provide that money which the Treasury would have lent to the Central Electricity Authority will in fact be lent to the Electricity Council.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolution to be reported Tomorrow.

PATENTS BILL [Lords]

Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Clause 1.—(TIME LIMITS UNDER SS. 12 AND 13 OF PATENTS ACT, 1949, 12, 13 & 14 GEO. 6. c. 87.)

8.15 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. F. J. Erroll): I beg to move, in page 2, line 7, to leave out subsection (2).
The effect of the Amendment is to leave Section 13 of the Patents Act, 1949, unamended. Although, therefore, by virtue of the other provisions of the Bill an applicant for a patent will have a longer period than is allowed by the Act of 1949 for putting his patent specification in order for acceptance, he will not be able to request the postponement of acceptance for a longer period than the maximum of fifteen months.
This Amendment was debated in another place and a substantially similar, if not the same, Amendment was discussed earlier, in Standing Committee. The Amendments were then resisted on two grounds. First, it did not seem likely that it would do very much in practice to achieve the result desired, because it was still possible for a person who positively desired to delay acceptance of his patent specification to achieve delay by the simple process of delaying the completion of the application and delaying the putting of it in order.
The second reason for resisting the Amendments was that since 1939 an applicant has been allowed to make such a request for postponement of acceptance and, therefore, of publication until the end of the statutory maximum period, and it was felt that Parliament ought not to make what would, in fact, be a change in the law on this point without an inquiry among the interested parties.
In Committee I gave an undertaking that I should look into the points raised by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee. As a result, I have come to the conclusion that, in view of the wide representations which we have re-

ceived on the matter, it would meet the wishes of all parties if we were to change the law and to leave out subsection (2).
I should make it plain, nevertheless, that we feel that the Amendment will not have very much practical effect in respect of those who are deliberately determined to resist the completion of their specification. We offer the Amendment to the House in the hope that it will do something to achieve the desired objective.

Sir Frank Soskice: Speaking for myself, I am most grateful to the Minister for the step which he has taken. When the Bill was discussed in Committee considerable anxiety was expressed from both sides about the proposal which the Government had then embodied in the Bill. As the Minister has said, he has deferred in substance to the wishes expressed from both sides of the Committee.
I am not quite as pessimistic as he is. He feels that the Amendment will make little change. Those who spoke in favour of it from both sides of the Commitee feel, for the reasons which we evinced in the discussion, that this change will prevent what otherwise might have been a substantial abuse and a substantial prolongation of proceedings. I am glad that the Minister has made the Amendment. I am grateful to him and I should like to thank him for the change which he has introduced.

Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke: May I add my thanks to the Minister and those of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald), who is unable to be here, but who has asked me to express his thanks to the Minister for meeting the wishes of the Committee. I think that they were the wishes of the entire Committee upstairs.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chertsey was the moving spirit on that occasion, and he is, therefore, particularly pleased by the Minister's action. I think he shares the view of the right hon. and learned Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) that this is a substantial advantage, and that the whole cause which we all have at heart will be much advantaged by it.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 2.—(PROVISIONS AS TO PENDING APPLICATIONS.)

Mr. Erroll: I beg to move, in page 4, line 7, at the end to insert:
(5) Subsection (3) of section twelve of the Patents Act, 1949 (which provides for an extension of time where an appeal is pending or the time for appealing has not expired), shall apply in relation to the revised period as extended by virtue of the preceding provisions of this section as it applies in relation to the period referred to in that subsection.
This Clause provides powers for allowing special extensions of time for putting in order applications which are pending when the Act comes into force and which have already been pending for a longer time than the new period to be allowed by Clause 1. As the Bill stands, such applications are outside the provisions of Section 12 (3) of the 1949 Act, but it is thought just to apply those provisions to them also, in spite of their age.
This is a small provision. It is unlikely that it will require to be invoked on more than possibly a few occasions, but it is felt that the opportunity should be taken, by means of this Amendment, to make these facilities available to those few cases which might otherwise fail through not having sufficient time.

Sir F. Soskice: This is a small and un-ambitious change and, so far as I can see, would, as the Minister says, have application in comparatively few cases. For the reasons which he has given, to which, speaking for myself, I would entirely assent, I feel that it is an improvement in the Bill, and I think that the House should accept it.

Amendment agreed to.

Bill read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.

TRANSPORT, NORTH-EAST AREA

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Hughes-Young.]

8.22 p.m.

Mr. Charles Grey: For a considerable time there has been extreme concern about conditions in the villages of Framwellgate Moor and Pity Me. As the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport knows, the A.1 road runs through those two villages, and a difficulty has arisen. There is now under consideration both the installation of push-button traffic lights and the construction of a Pity Me by-pass road. My reason for "chancing my arm" in this debate is to try to encourage the Parliamentary Secretary to give favourable consideration to both projects.
The name Pity Me is rather intriguing. One often wonders what its origin was. Although there is a legend about it, nobody knows exactly how this place received its name. The book that I obtained from the Library gave only the story that most people know. It is said that a long time ago some French monks settled there, around a small lake, which they called "Petit Mer." As my French pronunciation is very bad indeed, I had better give the meaning. The words mean "a little sea." It is possible that someone might have corrupted the name and called it Pity Me.
Whether or not there is any truth in that story I do not know, but what is certain is that that stretch of the road is certainly living up to its present name—"death mile." It is a case of pitying both the poor motorists and the poor pedestrians. The need for something to be done on this stretch of road has exercised the attention of many of us for quite a long time, and I have been encouraged to speak on this subject tonight because the Minister made a statement—publicly, I understand—to the effect that he intends to give priority to certain of the more important trunk road schemes, including the Great North Road. I therefore hope that from the Parliamentary Secretary I will get a promise that he will give very high consideration and priority to the construction both of


the Pity Me by-pass and the push-button traffic lights.
As I have said, this is not a new problem, but it is one that has been aggravated by a continued increase in traffic year by year. In December, 1952, I put a Question to the then Minister of Transport on this problem. There were then innumerable cases of prosecutions. Many motorists were prosecuted for exceeding the speed limit and most of them, I will not say all, used the excuse that they had not observed, or could not observe, an existing restriction sign.
That being so, a colleague of mine and myself tried to get the Minister to reinforce the effectiveness of that sign by using a white marking right across the road, at various intervals, with the words, "30 miles per hour," so that not only would the motorists have no excuse for not seeing the sign, but it would be a continual warning to pedestrians and people living in that area.
Looking at the Minister's reply now, it looks even sillier than it did when we got it. We were told that this white line business was not a success; that the white line was not a satisfactory solution because it rapidly wore out. That may be true. I do not doubt for a moment that it does wear out, but, if it wears out, it can be replaced again. But the Minister's next words were rather peculiar. He said that not only would it wear out, but that it would be
… obscured by snow, mud, dust. …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1St December, 1952; Vol. 508. c. 1100.]
as if snow, mud and dust remained on a main road for any length of time. I wonder what that Minister would have thought of any local authority that allowed such conditions to prevail on a main road for any length of time. That Answer was given nearly five years ago, and I mention it now only to prove that this is an old problem and one that has never been really tackled. I am raising the matter tonight so that we might be able to get from the Minister an assurance that something will be done very soon.
I asked the Minister, by means of a Question, what he intended to do. My last Question was on 19th December, 1956, and I got an assurance that he was waiting for some information from the local authority and that he would write

to me as soon as inquiries were completed. I have not had a reply up to now. I am not blaming the Minister for that. Perhaps I shall get a good one from him tonight; I hope I shall.
I wish to emphasise the great need for something to be done here. The danger on the road is manifest, and I question whether there is another stretch of road more dangerous than this. I have some figures before me and, although I will not bore the House by quoting many of them. I think that I should mention one or two. Between 1st July, 1955, and 31st December of the same year, the number of prosecutions for speeding was 51, and the number of official cautions was 10, making a total of 61. From January, 1956, to December, 1956, the number of prosecutions went up to 178 and the number of official cautions was 22, making a total of 200.
Thus, merely from the standpoint of people breaking the law, something should be done. I believe that some of them are sincere when they say that they do not know they are in a restricted area on this stretch of road, and I therefore feel that the existing signs are not adequate for the purpose.
In 1954 there were two fatal accidents, three serious, five slight, and nine cases of damage to vehicles. In 1955, we are glad to note, there was not a fatal accident, but there were three serious and three slight accidents, and nine cases of damage to vehicles, a total of 15. It is true that there were not any fatal accidents or serious accidents, in 1956, but there were four slight accidents and nine cases of damage to vehicles, making a total of 13.
At first sight, it looks as though 1956 was a good year; but, as a matter of fact, it might have proved to be the worst. In that year there was the operation of the "Red area" scheme, which lasted for four weeks, and then, in addition, there were restrictions on traffic for approximately four months because of the laying of a large pipeline. Thus, for five months of the year conditions were such that that period could not be counted in the year, and the figures I have given can be treated as referring to seven months only. I believe I have given sufficient evidence to demonstrate how right are the people who call this particular stretch of road "death mile".
Given the problem, the next thing is to try to give an answer. I believe that the answer can be provided only by adopting two methods. The Parliamentary Secretary may think that that is asking for a lot, but I hope that I shall get them both. The first essential, on which I place high priority, is the Pity Me by-pass; that is the main thing to be considered. That is something which I believe would give great satisfaction to the county council and to the Durham Rural District Council.
I have here a few more figures. A census was taken; I do not know the exact dates covered by it, but it was taken before July, 1955. It was then estimated that passing along that road there were 9,500 vehicles per day, as compared with a maximum capacity of 6,000. There were 3,500 vehicles beyond capacity. There is a figure which is definite proof of the need for the Minister to do something shortly about the granting of a by-pass route.
Even the by-pass, it is estimated, would divert only 5,500 vehicles a day from the existing road, leaving 4,000 vehicles, or a figure which is only 2,000 below its maximum capacity, on the existing road. I hope, therefore, that in addition to the by-pass the Minister will agree to our request for the installation of press-button traffic lights.
I know that the problem is not an easy one and that there may be a difference of opinion. I know the area very well indeed, as do some of my hon. Friends, who pass through it on the way to their constituencies. Although they enjoy great pleasure in riding through Durham, they, too, have experienced the nightmare of passing through the "death mile". They will, I am sure, give me sufficient support to ensure that the Minister does something about it.
Three possibilities have been considered. I agree that a central island would not be practicable, because the carriageway is too narrow and such an island would serve only to increase the danger both to motorists and to pedestrians. Another suggestion was the installation of traffic lights at the "Salutation Inn". Again, the conclusion was reached that congestion and accidents would be caused.
The third possibility, however, of the provision of a manually-operated crossing, commands a good deal of support. The only objection is that there might be misuse of the press-button system, but that is one of the risks we must take. The only test in such a case is not whether there would be misuse, but whether safety on the road would be improved. I have no doubt whatever that it would be improved.
In any event, these proposals represent no more than a temporary expedient and eventually it will be necessary to face the need for another scheme to link the Pity Me by-pass road to divert most of the traffic away from this very bad area. But the need for action is urgent, and the press-button traffic light suggestion is one of the methods to which consideration should be given.
There are two things, and only two things, that will answer the immediate problem. First, we badly need the Pity Me by-pass, which would ease the main problem; and, secondly, we need the manually-operated pedestrian crossing, which would complete the answer to the immediate problem. If the Minister does not agree to the traffic lights suggestion, I ask him to adopt the suggestion that we made to his predecessor in 1951, not merely to improve the whole area by signs at the side of the road, but to have the 30 m.p.h. restriction marked in white right across the road at frequent intervals, as well as the use of "Danger Ahead" signs. This would do something to ease the great problem on this stretch of road.
If the Parliamentary Secretary gives favourable consideration to this mild request, he will not only earn the gratitude of the Durham County Council and the Durham Rural District Council, but will earn the gratitude of all those who live in Framwellgate Moor and Pity Me.

8.40 p.m.

Mr. Ernest Popplewell (Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West): I hope that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will give very careful consideration indeed and not merely a stock Departmental answer to the case which my hon. Friend the Member for Durham (Mr. Grey) has put. Those of us who pass along that road frequently know its dangerous nature.
For a long time there have been under consideration schemes for a by-pass. I


sincerely trust that in the new programmes and developments being considered priority will be given to building that by-pass to reduce the dangers and relieve the congestion on that road. My hon. Friend has given facts and statistics about all its dangers, and he has gone into considerable detail. I have not the personal knowledge of the road that he has, but because of the acquaintance I have with it, I add my plea to the Minister to consider the case which my hon. Friend has presented.
Seeing that the Motion for the Adjournment has been moved much earlier than usual, I want to take advantage of this opportunity to raise another matter. I apologise to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary for raising it somewhat suddenly. I know that he will not be able to give me a complete answer tonight, but I hope that he will consider the matter which I wish to bring up.
I urge him and his right hon. Friend to reconsider the attitude which the Minister has taken towards the proposed new crossing of the Tyne. The scheme for a crossing between Jarrow and Howdon has been under consideration for a considerable period. The local authorities in that part of the country have gone to a tremendous amount of trouble about it. They have prepared plans with a view to developing a Tyne tunnel. The present Minister's predecessors always accepted the idea of that project.
What a bombshell it was which the Minister dropped when he met the Tunnel Committee, consisting of representatives of all the local authorities which had been working jointly on the scheme, and suddenly told the Committee that a bridge should be built instead of a tunnel. Considerable expenditure has been incurred by the local authorities in building the pilot tunnel which is already in existence and in use. That is a pedestrians' tunnel. The local authorities have prepared approaches to the tunnel to link it with the road schemes to relieve the traffic congestion on the Great North Road. All that work has been done. It has been going on for a long time.
The present Minister's predecessor gave a promise that when the work on the Dartford-Purfleet tunnel no longer required their services the rings—I think that is the correct word to use—would

be employed on the Tyne tunnel, and that that would be the next job for which they would be used.
It has come as a big shock to all the North-East to learn that that promise is not to be honoured, that we are not to go ahead with the great venture of the Tyne tunnel, but that a new bridge is to be built instead. What will that mean? I emphasise that there is already in use a pilot tunnel for pedestrians and cyclists. It was part and parcel of the bigger scheme. If a bridge is built, its height must be at least 175 feet to allow for traffic on the Tyne. The House can imagine what it will mean to the local authorities to have to make approach roads on the north and south banks of the Tyne to a bridge which must be 175 feet high.
It means making an additional scar on the landscape in that area. It means that the local authorities, which are very proud of their achievements in local government and of their efforts to make that industrial part of the country more attractive, will have to recast their ideas once again. The Minister's suggestion that that tremendous scar should be made in the area causes a great deal of heartburning among the local authorities. I ask the Minister to think again.
Among the excuses made for building a bridge, it is suggested that a tunnel would cost about £12 million. The cost of a bridge has been estimated at about £7 million. I submit that, compared with the advantage of a tunnel and the danger of building a bridge at that point, with interference with shipping on the Tyne, that margin of cost is not a very material factor. The project seems to me nonsensical.
It means that the local authorities will have to change their outlook once again and go to the trouble of making a new survey, because an approach road to a tunnel would not be suitable for use as an approach road to a bridge. It means that a great deal of useless expenditure will be incurred again, when a pilot scheme for a tunnel has already been carried out and there has been the Minister's promise that the Tyne tunnel would be the next venture after the completion of the Dartford-Purfleet tunnel.
I suggest that to cast this tunnel scheme to one side is not to act honourably


towards local authorities in the area. The Minister cannot obtain a single word of support for the bridge project from industrialists and local authorities in the North. Therefore, I urge him to honour the previous pledge and allow the Tyne tunnel to be the first priority after the Dartford-Purfleet tunnel.
In many ways, because of the heavy industrial development there, the North-East Coast has a squalid appearance, because where wealth has been created ugly scars have been left on the land. People in the area feel that now, when they want to see some real developments taking place there, they are being unduly penalised by this change of policy, and an additional scar is being created. We also feel that we are unduly penalised in respect of the new road plan for the country. Newcastle-upon-Tyne has a tremendous traffic problem.
There has been in mind for a long time the building of another bridge further up the Tyne which would not interfere with shipping in the way that the bridge about which I have spoken would. The Scotswood bridge in my constituency is totally inadequate for the traffic passing over it. Indeed, there are restrictions upon its use. For a long time schemes have been in mind for building an additional bridge linked with plans for further by-passing Newcastle.
Little has been heard of that scheme for a long time. The traffic congestion in Newcastle is not so bad at the moment because of the shortage of petrol, but normally it is on a par with that in all our large provincial cities. A new Scotswood bridge linked with the suggested Western by-pass is another scheme to which the Minister might pay attention. It would help to provide the additional facilities which are so necessary in that great industrial area.
I apologise to the Minister for raising additional points of which I have not given him notice. I raise them because the Adjournment debate has begun early and we have at our disposal more time than usual.
I would also draw the Minister's attention to a half-mile stretch of road in my constituency, between Newcastle and Throckley, which is referred to as "Hell's Highway". I presented to the former Minister a petition about it signed by

well over 2,000 people. The stretch of road is unrestricted. I have had strong representations from constituents whose children have to cross it to attend school. There is a developing housing estate there, and schools are situated on both sides of the road, and a number of accidents have occurred. The Northumberland police are not in favour of the imposition of a speed limit on this stretch of road, but the petition asked the former Minister to examine the matter. I have seen these traffic conditions for myself.
This case has been put forward before, but the Minister has refused to budge. I hope that the present Minister will have a fresh look at the matter and approach it with an open mind. I hope that in addition to imposing speed restrictions on that stretch of road, he will ensure that the authorities in the area provide some school wardens to increase the safety of children crossing the road on their way to and from school.
That road is the west road from Newcastle to Carlisle. It carries a tremendous amount of traffic and yet there are no school wardens to take children across the road. The local road safety committee has considered this matter very thoroughly, but because there are so many streets entering the road, it has not been found practicable to provide adequate safety arrangements for the children.
Nevertheless, it should be possible to provide additional protection. There have been accidents and I have sent the Minister pictures of accidents which have taken place there. I do not expect the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to reply to all these points tonight, but I hope that he will return to his Department to look at these matters again and at some time write to me on some of the points that I have been speaking about.

8.57 p.m.

Mr. William Ainsley: I want to support my hon. Friend the Member for Durham (Mr. Grey) in what he has said about the Pity Me bypass into the City of Durham. I speak as one who dealt with this matter for many years as a member of Durham County Council. I do not want to go over the ground which my hon. Friend has already covered. He gave the statistics of traffic and road casualties. I want to present the problem encountered by the Durham County Police in their constant patrolling


of that portion of highway. The cost of patrolling that portion of highway is out of all proportion to similar costs in the rest of the country.
I want the Government to take into consideration the development which is taking place in that area. The only solution is the early provision of the by-pass. The county council is now building a technical college which is close to the main road and very shortly the county council will be coming forward with a scheme for a new shire hall.
I rank as one of the finest surveyors in the country Mr. Cotton, the Durham county surveyor. I know that he has repeatedly approached the regional officer with projects which will maintain the standards of our highways and roads in Durham. The county council has introduced mechanisation in the highways and bridges department to cut down manpower and thus reduce costs, while keeping highways in the county at a standard which should be adopted by the rest of the country.
If the Minister is continually cutting down expenditure on highways, it will be to the detriment of that department. From a conversation which I had, I gathered that there was a danger of having to dispense with some of the employees of the highways and bridges department of the county council. As there has been deputation after deputation to see the predecessors of the Minister and there have also been regional conferences at which the danger of that road has been pointed out, I urge the hon. Gentleman not to use the figures of the reduced traffic now using this road because of petrol rationing to build up his case against the suggestions which we have made. When petrol rationing is abolished, the flow of traffic will again return to that portion of the road.
I also want to refer to the question which my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West (Mr. Popplewell) raised in regard to the Tyne tunnel project, but more particularly in regard to the Durham side. I had the pleasure for many years of sitting on the joint committee, and, in conjunction with the Northumberland County Council, we went forward with the scheme. We completed the pedestrian crossing, with a cyclists' crossing alongside it, and we were promised that the rings should come from

the Dartford—Purfleet scheme to the Tyne tunnel scheme, which was to be the next job, while the one after that was in Scotland. However, the rings have bypassed the Newcastle scheme and have gone straight to Scotland.
I should also like to put the position to the Minister from the practical point of view. We have already expended a large amount of money in building the pedestrian crossing, which has been a boon to pedestrians in that area. I ask the Minister if he has ever given a thought to all the planning that has gone on by the local authorities on either bank of the River Tyne, how the townships have been planned on either bank, how the roads have been prepared to give access to the tunnel, and how the county council has acquired land, in some cases by compulsory purchase, and removed people through slum clearance, in order that we should be ready when the Minister gave permission to go forward with the Tyne tunnel scheme.
All that has added to the cost of the local authorities in preparing the scheme, but the Minister came along and asked the joint committee to give consideration to the question of a bridge in preference to the tunnel. Not wishing to be discourteous to the Minister, the joint committee was prepared to give consideration to the suggestion, knowing full well all that was involved on account of the clearance required above high-water level for ships passing under the bridge. The figure, which has already been stated, is 175 feet above high-water level.
Let the Minister think of the approaches on either side to a bridge constructed at that height. What effect will it have on the townships on either side? All town planning considerations would go, because those towns would definitely be cut in two, and all the money which has been expended in preparing the roads and clearing the sites would be money wasted by the local authorities.
What would become of the pedestrian tunnel? Would it be used to the extent that it is used now? The bridge would have a pedestrian walk on either side. Therefore, in the course of time, the pedestrian tunnel would prove to be a white elephant and the money expended on it would have been wasted. That is why I plead with the Minister to give consideration to these schemes so that


the county can go forward with these improvements which are long overdue.
Money has been spent, there have been deputations, interviews, long hours of discussion in committee, and now there is frustration just because of the attitude of the Minister. I plead that careful consideration should be given to these projects so that we can meet the demand that pedestrians should be safeguarded and that the increasing traffic in the North-East for the conveyance of goods and the opening up of industrial areas will be catered for.

9.6 p.m.

Mr. Edward Short (Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central): I am glad to have the opportunity to take part in this debate. What was a debate on one comparatively minor problem in the North-East has now broadened into a general debate on road communications in the area.

Mr. Grey: The point I raised is very important.

Mr. Short: I agree with my hon. Friend. It is a matter of relativity. I said that it was comparatively minor compared with the problem as a whole.
A debate of this kind on communications in the North-East is long overdue. Hon. Members on both sides who represent constituencies in this area—I wonder where the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) is tonight—have felt for a long time that the North-East has been getting a raw deal on the question of road projects. We have often wondered whether the gentlemen in Whitehall really know that the North-East exists.
When the present Colonial Secretary was Minister of Transport he published a list of major projects. The nearest one to the North-East of England was the Mill Bridge, at Doncaster, 130 miles from the River Tyne. That does not represent a fair deal for the North-East. Between the Rivers Tees and Tyne there is one of the most important compact industrial areas in the country, indeed in Europe. In a square bordered by the Pennines on the west, the sea on the east and the Rivers Tees and Tyne there live 5 million hard-working people. I should say that this is one of the worst-served industrial areas from the point of view of internal

road communications, and that this is because of the neglect over many years of successive Ministers of Transport.
It is high time that the Parliamentary Secretary and his right hon. Friend visited the North-East and examined the problem. The communications in the North-East industrial area are, of course, complicated by the three rivers. We call it the "three rivers country" now. These three rivers cut right across the industrial areas. River crossings are difficult and expensive and it is those three rivers which partly complicate our communications.
I support the plea put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Durham (Mr. Grey). It is a rather peculiar problem, concerning one mile of road which I know extremely well. It is an odd sort of problem, because it is a mile of dead-straight, fairly wide road, yet it has one of the highest accident rates in the North-East. I do not think that the local officers of the Ministry of Transport have really got down to finding out the cause of the accidents. In my opinion, the major cause of accidents there is speed. It is one of those roads which look safe to a motorist, but which are extremely dangerous.
My hon. Friend mentioned the French derivation of the words "Pity Me," a village on that bit of road. The French have a very effective method of reducing the speed of vehicles. They just do not repair the roads. They leave the pavé in the towns and villages in a shocking state, and the motorist has to reduce speed to a good deal under 30 miles an hour.
Fortunately, or unfortunately, this one mile of road has been kept in excellent repair by Durham County Council. There is a great temptation to motorists to travel very quickly. My own opinion, which rather diverges from that of my hon. Friend the Member for Durham, is than a by-pass road is not necessary here. With a bit of widening on the left side of the road, as one approaches Durham City from Newcastle, a double carriageway could be made, linking up with the existing by-pass road. A great part of Durham City is already by-passed.
If that were done, as I suggest, it would mean taking up some land on the left of the road. A good deal of that is open


fields. Where there are houses they have fairly big gardens, although the occupants would object to losing part of them, I expect. It is a fairly wide road and I am certain that, with very little expense, it could be given a double carriageway. The snag would be that it would have to link with a right-angle bend at the existing by-pass, but that would not be a very great difficulty if a suitable roundabout were constructed.
I know that Durham County Council has a scheme for a new by-pass road cutting off the corner altogether, but that would be extremely expensive. My scheme would cost less and, in the end, would be just as effective. If the road had two carriageways instead of one, the whole problem would be cured. Durham City would be wholly by-passed by a double carriageway.
Now let me turn, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West (Mr. Popplewell), to the crossings of the Tyne. Tyneside is the biggest bottleneck on the whole A.1 road. There are others. There are small places like Stilton, slightly bigger ones like Stamford, and big towns like Doncaster, but there is nothing at all on the A.1 road between London and Scotland approaching the size and complexity of Tyneside. The A.1 road has to run right through the middle of the County Borough of Gateshead, through the main shopping street of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, right through the city and through the main shopping street of the Urban District of Gosforth. Altogether, I should think that it has to go through about 12 miles of extremely congested urban area. Lying across one of the biggest arterial roads, that area is a tremendous block to the flow of traffic.
I want to mention two schemes that have already been discussed, and to suggest a third. The first has already been mentioned by my hon. Friend, and is the Tyne tunnel. The Committee planning the building of the Tyne tunnel, a joint committee of the two county councils, has been in existence for many years. My hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North-West (Mr. Ainsley), who is an ex-chairman of Durham County Council, has pointed out that that committee has purchased property on both sides of the river and the planning of the town of Jarrow and the district of Howdon has been based on the construction of the tunnel. The planning has

gone on on that assumption and property has been purchased. The whole thing was going ahead well. A pedestrian tunnel was built and is now in operation.
From the Treasury Bench we were told by the previous Minister of Transport thta this was to be the next major tunnel to be built after the one in the south, which has been mentioned. Then, a year or so ago, we heard that the Minister had abandoned the tunnel and wanted a bridge. He was trying to persuade the local authorities and local interests concerned to abandon the tunnel and build a bridge, because that would be a little cheaper. The crossing place between Jarrow and Howdon is very low on the river, only four miles from the sea. This great river port extends seven, eight or nine miles up the river. I suggest that four miles only from the mouth of the Tyne is far too low down the river for a bridge.
Tyneside Chamber of Trade, which, only a week or so ago, was known as Newcastle and Gateshead Chamber of Trade, but has now changed its name, opposes the scheme. The Tyne Commission opposes it because the bridge would have to be a tremendous height to allow big ships to go through. In addition, it would upset the whole planning on either side of the river. A bridge of that height would have to go right into the hinterland and would cut Jarrow in half. I should have thought that Jarrow has suffered quite enough in the past without having that done to it.
It is monstrous for the Ministry of Transport to turn down the tunnel idea and push the bridge because that would be a little cheaper, when all the local authorities on Tyneside are anxious to proceed with a tunnel. In their statement on local government the Government said that they wanted local government to have more power and local autonomy. For heaven's sake give that to us on Tyneside; then we can go ahead with the tunnel. We will have to pay for the greater part of it and we want it.

Mr. Popplewell: While I agree that in Tyneside we shall want to pay our share, the Minister must not understand that we are making an offer for the Tyneside to pay for the whole scheme. I am sure my hon. Friend does not mean that.

Mr. Short: I am sorry I did not express myself clearly. In the long run, of course, we shall have to pay for it either way, as the Government have no money except what is given them in taxation. Whether it comes from general or local taxation, we have to pay.
The building of a tunnel or a bridge would not entirely relieve congestion on the A1 road. It would divert from the A1 road some of the traffic anxious to by-pass Newcastle and Gateshead, but to do so that traffic would have to go a long way round. The biggest contribution which a Tyne tunnel could make would be in helping to link up the industrial areas north and south of the Tyne. To relieve traffic congestion in Newcastle and Gateshead some other crossings of the Tyne must be devised. For many years Newcastle City Council has been developing a western by-pass of the city. It involves a new bridge across the Tyne to the west of the city, and I should like to see that go ahead as soon as possible.
The traffic conditions in Newcastle are not too bad at the moment. That is because of petrol rationing. Before petrol rationing, however, they were impossible. I go into the city every week with a motor car, and I can say that it is almost impossible to find a parking place and often impossible to get through the city without considerable delay. If the western bridge over the Tyne were built and the by-pass, which is already partly made, linked up with it, it would remedy that state of affairs considerably.
As my hon. Friend said, that bridge is in a different category from that which the Minister would like to have built at Jarrow. It is high up the River Tyne, and I do not think any big ships could go as far as that. Consequently, it could be a very much lower bridge. Also the banks of the river are comparatively flat where that bridge would be built. I ask the Minister to look into that matter, too.
May I also suggest to him an entirely new idea which occurred to me some time ago and on which I have been doing a little research and a little work? Even if the western by-pass and the Tyne tunnel were built, that would not entirely solve the traffic congestion on Tyneside. I believe that another by-pass ought to be built, in this case an eastern by-pass.

The Minister will not know what I am talking about here, but my remarks will go on the record, and perhaps someone in the Ministry will look this up.
In the City of Newcastle there is an almost directly straight road from the River Tyne, going about seven or eight miles to the north and joining the A1 road seven or eight miles north of Newcastle. It seems to me that if another crossing of the Tyne could be made to link up with this road and with the Gateshead side, it would be a comparatively cheap way of by-passing a good deal of the A1 traffic.
The road to which I am referring runs from the village of West Moor through the Longbenton estate, along Benton Road, along Chillingham Road and straight across to the River Tyne. It is a fairly wide road, which runs in a dead straight line for many miles from the River Tyne to the north. It cuts out the centre of the city.
If a bridge could be built there and the road system on the Gateshead side could be linked with it—it is only a short distance from the A1 to Gateshead—it would provide at a comparatively small cost an additional Tyne crossing. It would involve a bridge, but in the place about which I am speaking, where the straight road runs to the river, the banks of the river are extremely steep and the river itself is narrow; steep banks come down to a fairly narrow river, and a bridge across there would be fairly short and would not involve any considerable building out into the town on either side. I put that suggestion to the Ministry, and I hope that somebody in the Ministry will be interested enough to read the OFFICIAL REPORT tomorrow and to look into my suggestion.
I have put three points to the Minister. First, he should abandon the silly idea, which is not wanted by anyone in the North-East, of building a bridge instead of a tunnel; secondly, he should push ahead with the western by-pass road and the new bridge in my hon. Friend's constituency; and, thirdly, he should look into the new project which I have suggested to the east of the centre of Newcastle. In this way he could provide three new road crossings of the Tyne. That would make a major contribution


to eliminating the biggest bottleneck on the A1 road, and it would also add to the efficiency of this great industrial area.

9.25 p.m.

Mr. E. Fernyhough: I am grateful to my hon. Friends for taking this opportunity of raising once more the vexed question of the connection between the two banks of the Tyne. I do not think that there is any single thing in the North-East about which the people have become more cynical. As the Joint Parliamentary Secretary knows, it has been under discussion for years; there has been one deputation after another, and assurance after assurance. We now find that we are as far as ever from having a tunnel because, according to a Press report, the Minister made clear to a deputation from the Tyne Tunnel Joint Committee that there was no opportunity in the foreseeable future of our getting a tunnel. He seems also to have indicated that we have now also lost our place in the queue, taking fourth place where hitherto we had the third.
This change of attitude in the Minister is amazing, because as recently as 10th December last I raised this question on the Adjournment. During that debate I asked the Joint Parliamentary Secretary whether he could give us any hope that night that the tunnel still retained its place in the queue, and still came after Dartford and Whiteinch. He replied as follows:
In reply to the first point, while I do not wish to give any new promise tonight, I think that the order of priority was indicated, as the hon. Member said, which suggested that the Tyne tunnel would be the next tunnel undertaken in this country."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th December, 1956; Vol. 562, c. 196.]
It would be very interesting to us to know the circumstances which have caused the Minister to change his mind and to give some other project priority over ours.
Furthermore I hope that before the Minister makes a final decision he will fall in with the wish of my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central (Mr. Short) and pay a visit to my constituency. Let him see for himself what a monstrosity a bridge of this height would be in a place like Jarrow. There is an old song entitled "Underneath the Arches". The vast proportion of the people of Jarrow would certainly be living under the arches if a bridge

173 ft. or 200 ft. high were erected. I tell the hon. Gentleman quite sincerely that all the members of the local authority are up in arms against such an idea. So far as Jarrow is concernd, it is a tunnel or nothing.
I do not know whether the Minister has ever visited Jarrow. Like Topsy, it "just grow'd". Originally there was no planning and because of that today's men of vision on the local authority have had to pay a much higher price than otherwise would have been necessary in order to house the citizens and to provide them with the necessary cultural facilities. In any case, the railway divides the town in two; this proposed bridge will divide it again. I implore the hon. Gentleman to look at the site and then to ask himself whether he would like to live within several hundred yards of such a bridge.
My hon. Friend has mentioned that this week the Chancellor has made a statement indicating that henceforth grants to local authorities will he block grants, and not percentage grants given for each particular type of expenditure that the local authority may be undertaking. If that is so, and assuming the existence of the new system, I should like to ask whether, if the local authorities are prepared to build a tunnel instead of a bridge, the Minister will give them his promise that they can go ahead. It seems to me that in these circumstances the man from Whitehall does not know best. The people who live in the vicinity are those who ought to have the final determination of what method should be adopted in order to link the two banks of the Tyne.
I should like to stress also what the building of a bridge would mean to the replanning of Jarrow. The local authority, in conjunction with the county council, has gone to a great deal of trouble and expense in order to try to plan and build a town worthy of its citizens. All that planning was undertaken on the basis that the two banks of the Tyne would be linked by a tunnel. If the Minister insists on there being a bridge or nothing, and if that project is carried out, all that planning which has taken place in the post-war years will be useless. All the expense involved in acquiring the necessary property and reserving the necessary land will have been in vain, and the local authorities will have to start again from the beginning.
The Minister must be aware that it is generally thought that a bridge would have to be at least 173 ft., and very probably 200 ft. high. He must be aware that the Tyne Improvement Committee and the Admiralty are as opposed to the idea of a bridge today as they have ever been. The Minister, of course, gives his reasons for deciding now that a bridge is preferable to a tunnel, saying that now there are no strategic objections. Presumably, in the event of a hydrogen bomb war, it would not matter whether we had a tunnel or a bridge, because there would be nobody there after it to use either.
There are other considerations. We are considering a very important waterway. It is a very important industrial centre. I do not want the Minister in 1957 to make the same mistakes as were made by some of his predecessors, men who had no vision and no foresight, men who could not understand or appreciate the great changes which were going to come about. The nation is now having to lay out millions of pounds to repair the ravages resulting from their lack of vision.
The same sort of thing is bound to happen in this case. Who can say, having in mind the possible future of shipping or aviation, whether a bridge may not in years to come prove to be a liability? I am concerned about shipping interests, but I am trying also to look ahead to the time when inter-city services will, perhaps, be provided by helicopter, and bridges 200 ft. high may well be a dangerous obstruction. Has the Ministry itself thought of the possibility that in the not too distant future there may be helicopters flying between towns? In such an event, a bridge of that size and height could certainly prove dangerous.
I hope that before the Minister finally decides, he will do what all the other Ministers have done. They have all visited Jarrow. They have all said that a tunnel was necessary and would serve a great social and economic purpose, and they have left us feeling hopeful. After their departure, however, we have had to argue once more with their successors about the project.
I want the present Minister or the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to pay a visit—

Mr. Grey: I hope that when my hon. Friend invites the Minister to visit the North-East, he will certainly include the area of the "death mile," to which I have called attention.

Mr. Fernyhough: I have no doubt that if the Minister visited the North-East, he would try to cover as many of the projects as possible.
I want the Minister to see how great a monstrosity a bridge 200 ft. in height would be to a town like Jarrow and what it would mean to the people who would live within its shadow. We all know what we think of the narrow alleyways where people never see the sun. We should be imposing the same kind of difficulty upon future generations in Jarrow if we attempted to build a bridge of this kind in a closely built-up industrial area.
There is not one voice in Jarrow in favour of a bridge. Everybody want a tunnel. The one project would cost £10 million and the other £20 million, but we are thinking not only of the economic advantage. We must think also of the social advantages, and those are factors which should carry weight.
We know what happens when somebody wants to spoil part of our lovely island, even in places where people have not had to contend with slag heaps and pit heaps. There is at once a hue and cry, and great pressure is exerted because the people are not prepared to have the monstrosity of a power station, or whatever else it may be, put up in their midst. In most of the North-East, however, the people have suffered from monstrosities of one kind or another since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution and in the year 1957 they do not think that such things should be repeated.
I reiterate that before a final decision is made, the Minister should see what an ugly, impossible structure the proposed bridge would be. I am sure that if he saw the area, he would agree that the only hope of dealing with the traffic problem in that area in a sensible and reasonable way would be to grant the wish of the whole of the people of Tyneside and to let them have the tunnel for which they have waited far too long.

9.40 p.m.

Mr. William Blyton: I should like to support my hon. Friend the Member for Durham (Mr. Grey) in what he has said about that


length of road in his division and the Great North Road. Were the project to cost the Government a huge sum of money I could understand their opposing it because of the present situation of the nation's finances. I could understand their saying that, in the circumstances, they have not the money to spend on it. However, the cost is not such that it will bankrupt the Government, and I am sure that, even in view of the country's strained financial resources, that expenditure ought to be incurred because of the saving of life that that project could help to ensure. The opinion of our people in Durham is that the cost is nothing compared with the loss of human life incurred on that road, a loss which is being and which will be incurred.
This length of road has been considered by the Department many times to our knowledge. It is unfortunate that we have to raise this matter in Parliament. We do so because we have been unable to get the Minister to appreciate the danger of that road. I urge the Minister to help Durham County Council to put this situation right. Whatever differences there may be on other matters there can be no difference about the importance of the safety of the people of that area, nor can there be about the greatness of the volume of traffic, northbound and southbound, along that road.
I have listened with interest to what has been said about the Jarrow to Howdon tunnel. Since I was born I have lived only a mile from Jarrow, in the County Borough of South Shields. In all the thirty-seven years of my public life we have not had any help from the Government, no matter of what party, in getting a new crossing across the Tyne near its mouth. I was on South Shields Town Council in the 1930s, when we tried to get a bridge built near the mouth, because the banks there are exceptionally high. We argued for a bridge then so as to leave Newcastle out of the matter entirely, and so that we could obtain a crossing of the river at its mouth, with a road from Shields to Morpeth on the Great North Road.
Then there was the question of the Kearney Tube, a tunnel under the river between North Shields and South Shields. In all the years before the last war we failed miserably to get a crossing near

the mouth, on the eastern side of County Durham and Northumberland.
Then there was a project sponsored by the Government. In County Durham we were promised an international airport at West Bolden, and Durham County Council was told to plan its roads to serve that international airport and connect it with the road system in the county. The present Government have decided that that international airport for the North-East shall not be built.
The the county authorities on both sides of the river had to concentrate upon making approach roads to the new vehicular tunnel to be built after the pilot tunnel for pedestrians and cyclists. That pilot tunnel is now in use. It is very much used. Workmen who live on either side of the river, but whose work is on the opposite side, use it daily. It was expected that the vehicular tunnel would solve the problem of easing the roads in Newcastle.

Mr. Popplewell: I appreciate my hon. Friend's desire to have an international airport at Boldon, but he probably would agree, seeing that there is no possibility of that being provided, that the building of a Tyne tunnel would considerably assist the flow of traffic from Durham and Sunderland to utilise Newcastle's airport at Wolsington.

Mr. Blyton: My hon. Friend knows my views on Wolsington Airport and I do not want to go into that matter now. I still stand by my opinion that the Government let us down badly in the matter of West Boldon airport.
I want to get back to the history of the Tyne tunnel. I remember that the pilot tunnel was opened with great gusto and I recall how we were promised that a great tunnel would be provided for traffic and the whole of the East Coast would be opened up for traffic from the mouth of the Tyne. Now we find that we are back again in the controversy which raged in the 1930s, whether there should be a bridge or a tunnel at that point. To build a bridge in Jarrow and Howdon is nonsensical. There are no suitable banks on either side and, whilst the approach from the Howdon side would be a great inconvenience, to make an approach on the Jarrow side would be simply stupid.
It is said that Palmer's made Jarrow but made a mess of it. It is a town which was built, or rather dropped down there, in the last century. There are back-to-back houses, very poor property, some of it over a hundred years old, on the approaches to the river where the pilot tunnel has been made. Further up the river are the great shipyards which have built some of the biggest ships that the world has ever seen. It was at a place on the river above the spot where it is now proposed to build the bridge that the famous "Mauretania" and some of our great battleships were built.
I agree with the Tyne Improvement Commissioners that at that point it is essential, in the interest of the work in the shipyards, that the bridge should be sufficiently high to allow big ships to sail down the river, but if there is to be a bridge 175 feet high at Jarrow the approaches will have to start somewhere about Boldon Colliery about three miles from the river at Jarrow Point. If the bridge were built there, people would be living under the arches of the bridge to a depth of a mile from the river bank and would be in continual darkness.
The Minister should realise now that a proposal to build the bridge over the Tyne at its southern end where it is proposed to build the tunnel would not bear investigation. The solution to the problem lies in building a large tunnel to take the traffic and to ease the traffic problems on the roads from Newcastle.

Mr. Short: I have done a rapid, rough bit of arithmetic. Does my hon. Friend appreciate that, assuming the bridge is to be 200 feet about the river level—that is, the minimum figure which has been talked about—and, there being no banks on the Jarrow side, the slope up to the bridge is 1 in 20, which is a steep slope for a road up to a bridge, the approach road would have to be 4,000 feet long, nearly a mile? That means that the approach road would run almost through the whole length of the town of Jarrow.

Mr. Blyton: There is no doubt that the whole of the town would be covered, particularly the slum tenement dwellings in the area down to the river. Indeed, if the bridge were to be 175 feet above the river, I think that the approach would

have to begin somewhere near Boldon Colliery.
The Minister is living in cloud-cuckooland if he thinks that the people in the area will accept a bridge which involves approach arches which will put Jarrow in perpetual darkness. Jarrow has figured prominently in Conservative Party politics. Ellen Wilkinson wrote a book called "The Town that was Murdered" at the time of the march of the Jarrow unemployed, when the Conservatives were in power. The town is much better now, and we are very pleased about it. Jarrow has risen from the ashes of its former self and possesses, on its outskirts, some of the nicest houses in the North-East. It would be detestable to build a bridge with the long approach roads which would be required.
I earnestly ask the Minister very seriously to consider the case made by my hon. Friend the Member for Durham. I do not think the cost of what he has proposed would be prohibitive, and the plan would bring safety to the people using the road.
If the Minister cannot give us a tunnel, do not let him insult us by asking us to consider a bridge in the circumstances which I have described. If he cannot give us a tunnel, we will wait until we can convince some other Government that a tunnel is essential there.

9.54 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. G. R. H. Nugent): I have listened with great interest and appreciation to the eloquence of the North-East. Whatever else it lacks, it certainly lacks neither that nor a capacity to put its case. I feel that at the end the hon. Members who have spoken should congratulate their hon. Friend the Member for Durham (Mr. Grey) upon his good fortune in securing the opportunity of this debate to refer to his own very serious troubles on the Framwellgate Moor—Pity Me road, and thereby giving an opportunity for the other very interesting topics to be ventilated.
Throughout this interesting debate I have watched the right hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Grenfell), the Father of the House, sitting at the back of the Chamber. As he listened to the eloquence, I wondered whether he thought that he had


come into a Welsh debate. I could see that he was appreciating what was going on, even thought it did not come from the Principality.
I must also thank hon. Members opposite for their kind hospitality in the invitations which they have extended to me to pay a visit to that very interesting and important part of England. In my former capacity I paid a visit to Newcastle last summer, and I observed then that the traffic problems in that city were not inconsiderable. There is no doubt that a crossing is needed and needed most urgently.
My only regret this evening in replying to the debate is that I am not fully briefed to deal in detail with the many important points which have been raised. I hope that hon. Members opposite will forgive me in that I am not able to reply in detail. That does not mean that I underestimate the importance of the points made. We will certainly examine them in the Department and if we can meet them in any way, we will. I shall be very pleased to write in reply to any points with which I am not now able to deal.
If I get a chance to pay a visit to the North-East, I will certainly do so. If I do, I shall most certainly visit the City of Durham, which has always been a great favourite of mine. It has a cathedral unlike anything in the world, and whatever else I may see, I am sure to find something to inspire me there. By the time I have survived the difficulties of seeing Jarrow's and Newcastle's traffic, and survived the dangers of Framwellgate Moor and "Hell's Highway", I shall need the solace of the cathedral, I hope without going in feet first.
I want to say a few words about this important matter of the Tyne crossing. I am a newcomer to my Department and therefore not as well versed in it as I should like to be, but I was fortunate to be present when the deputation came to see my right hon. Friend a few weeks ago and I know what the situation is. I can say that my right hon. Friend is most anxious to get a crossing of the Tyne. He fully accepts the urgency of that need and it was unfortunate from our point of view that the priority that the Tyne crossing enjoyed apparently dropped back, although, in fact, I do not think it makes any difference to when it will be done.

The Scottish scheme has managed to get in first, but Scotland has a way of getting away with things down here.
Be that as it may, my right hon. Friend accepts the urgency of this need. The reason why he and his predecessor favoured a bridge was that my right hon. Friend thought that the prospect for a bridge being built was much better than for a tunnel. These are very large sums of money. I fully accept what the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough) said so cogently, that money is not the only consideration and that we have to appreciate amenity and sociological considerations, too. Certainly the last thing I would wish to see would be that Jarrow should live under the arches and in the shadow of a colossal bridge.
We realise that there are great problems about the approaches. As the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central (Mr. Short) said, there are grave difficulties where the banks are very low. That was one of the aspects which was discussed at some length when the deputation saw my right hon. Friend. As hon. Members will know, it was a private meeting and I am not at liberty to say in detail what was discussed, but I can say that my right hon. Friend is well aware of those aspects of the problem. Whatever is done will have to be something which is physically possible and suitable.

It being Ten o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. E. Wakefield.]

Mr. Popplewell: Can the hon. Gentleman assure us that the Minister has not finalised his conclusions and is insisting upon a bridge in preference to the tunnel? Could we be assured that his mind is not closed on the subject; but that he is prepared to listen to the reasoned arguments which have been put forward by the deputations to him, and to the arguments which have been put forward tonight?

Mr. Nugent: I am afraid I cannot give the hon. Member much comfort on that score. My right hon. Friend much prefers the bridge, because it costs a great deal less money. No one can say precisely what the respective figures are, but


they are very high, and there is a very big difference between them. Nothing is finalised at present, because we have to settle first whether the height which has been mentioned tonight of 175 ft. would in fact be enough for shipping to clear the bridge. If it is not, I think that quite obviously the scheme is off. I do not think I shall be saying anything that is not already well known if I say that 175 ft. or thereabouts is probably the maximum that could possibly be managed. That is a technical matter which my right hon. Friend is naturally anxious to clear up before he reaches any conclusion on this question.

Mr. Fernyhough: The hon. Gentleman will be aware, of course, that the Minister has recently announced that no projects of this character will be permitted henceforth unless it is subject to tolls. I should have thought that, as he is insisting on tolls, the grant towards a bridge with tolls will be no greater than it would have been for a bridge without tolls. It will not cost the Ministry any more, having regard to the fact that it has to have tolls, than would have been the position if we had had a bridge earlier, and had had a 50 per cent. grant towards its cost.

Mr. Nugent: That is a most ingenious argument. No doubt that is something which my right hon. Friend will bear in mind, but, of course, he also has to bear in mind the fact that the more expensive is the scheme the greater is the demand on the national resources; that he has to keep constantly in mind. Whenever he tries, and I think he has not been unsuccessful, to get more for our roads and transport, he is naturally reminded by the watchdogs of the Treasury that he must not go too far.
I say without any qualification that my right hon. Friend does wish to see this crossing, and he is now investigating most urgently the technical possibilities of the bridge. No doubt, when these are clear, that will be the time for further discussion with local representatives to see if the scheme can go forward. I can also give this assurance. I will call the attention of my right hon. Friend to the very interesting and authoritative views put forward tonight by hon. Members opposite. I am quite certain that he will give very full consideration to what has been

said and take it into account in deciding how this matter is to be handled.

Mr. Short: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. This debate did blow up rather suddenly, and I am sure that his own hon. Friends from the North-East were not aware of the fact that we began the Adjournment Debate so early. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that hon. Members on both sides of the House are absolutely unanimous in wanting a tunnel. The hon. Gentleman can take my word for that. He can consult with his hon. Friends if he wishes, but that is the case. Would he also convey to his right hon. Friend the fact that hon. Members from the North-East, with the hon. Members who have spoken here tonight, represent very nearly 500,000 electors, and that hon. Members on both sides of the House are unanimous in their opposition to a bridge?

Mr. Nugent: I think the hon. Member is further emphasising the cogency of the views that have been expressed, and I do not doubt that my own hon. Friends on this side of the House will not be backward in expressing their views, even if they are not entirely in line with those of the Government on this matter. I take note of what the hon. Gentleman said.

Mr. Short: I hope that the hon. Gentleman understood me. His hon. Friends have expressed themselves on many occasions, especially the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward). On every occasion they have pressed for a tunnel and opposed the bridge. That is the point.

Mr. Nugent: Yes, I take that point.
I cannot usefully go further into that subject, important though it is, because I am not briefed to do so, but I can assure hon. Members that their views will be fully examined and taken into account.
I have made note—and indeed I shall be able to pick them up from HANSARD—of the other schemes mentioned, including the Scotswood Bridge, mentioned by the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West (Mr. Popplewell) and other hon. Members. I have made particular note of "Hell's Highway", and I have also made a note about the problem of the school wardens. They could be a big help, and I will bring that point to the


attention of the Minister concerned and ask if anything can be done to help.
I now turn to the topic which was the peg on which this most interesting debate was hung. This was the problem raised by the hon. Member for Durham of the A1 trunk road at Framwellgate Moor and in particular the stretch which is now covered by the 30 m.p.h. limit. Let me say at once that we accept that it is a dangerous stretch of road. There is no question about that. No one would deny it. I rather agree with the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central that one of the most serious contributory factors is the speed of vehicles. One of the continuous problems of the Ministry of Transport is to try to settle 30 m.p.h. speed limits in such a fashion that they get general co-operation from the motorist; but the nature of this road, which is long and straight, evidently encourages motorists to feel that they can safely go a little faster. There is no getting away from the fact that that is a serious contributory factor to the accidents that occur there.
I have taken note of the suggestion made that we could turn the road into a double carriageway, but I am rather doubtful, from the advice that I have been given, whether that is possible. I think that it would involve taking a great deal of property on either side and would cause many difficulties. We all agree that the solution is in the building of a by-pass. I only wish that I was in a position tonight to say that that was immediately to be done, but in fact I cannot go beyond what was said by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport in December, in answer to a Parliamentary Question, that he hoped to include the by-pass in his road programme just as soon as economic circumstances permitted.
The route has been settled, and if there is any possibility in the future of giving it a higher priority we will certainly do so. It will cost, even on the basis of present costs, £200,000, so it is quite a hefty item. Our difficulty is that there is such a queue of these very urgent road projects awaiting attention that they just cannot all be done at once. But when it is built it is estimated that the road will carry about 60 per cent. of the present traffic.
The hon. Member for Durham gave me notice of his anxiety on this point, and I checked and found that the present road was carrying about 9,500 vehicles a day in 1955. It will probably carry a few more when petrol rationing comes to an end. It is reckoned that the new road would carry about 6,000 a day. That is not far different from what the hon. Member thought; he thought about 5.500. That would make an enormous difference. It would take over 60 per cent. of the present traffic, and the Framwellgate Moor section would be largely relieved. In the meantime, we are most anxious—I hope hon. Gentlemen will accept what I say in all sincerity—to do all we can in the way of minor amelioration.
We have, for example, considered very carefully the installation of pedestrian-operated lights. I am sorry to say that we do not think that it would be an improvement. Last October, following representations by the county surveyor, we arranged to have a census taken at the pedestrian crossing which now exists there. This took place on 6th December last. It was a Thursday, a good average day, we thought, to have a census.
We chose a morning period of two hours, from 10.20 to 12.20 and an afternoon period from 2.0 p.m. to 4.0 p.m. The morning was chosen particularly in the expectation that it would cover the period when children were leaving school for lunch and that they would be using the crossing as well. In fact, they did not, because traffic wardens were on duty and they got the children across without their using the crossing. We have in the census a picture of the ordinary flow of traffic, somewhat reduced because of petrol rationing, and of pedestrians, other than school children, using the crossing.
The census shows that in the morning there were 1,351 vehicles in the two hours. On the crossing, and actually using the pedestrian crossing, were 134 pedestrians. Within 50 yards the number was 119. In the afternoon, there were 1,310 vehicles, 88 pedestrians actually on the crossing and 113 within 50 yards of it. The vehicular flow was about 83 per cent. of that of December, 1955, and was undoubtedly reduced by the effect of petrol rationing.
During the census the observer noted the time that pedestrians had to wait before they could find a safe interval for crossing. The maximum was 34 seconds and the average period was 10 seconds for pedestrians using the crossing. There are a few further details which help to give a picture of the pedestrians at the crossing. The 134 people who crossed in the morning did so in 53 groups. In the afternoon 119 used the crossing and crossed in 40 groups.
If signals were installed we calculate that the lights would be used about 20 to 25 times per hour. That means that with the lights adjusted in the best fashion, pedestrians, after they had pressed the button would normally have to wait an average of 20 seconds for the signal to turn in their favour. It is clear that if we put in those lights the pedestrian would have to wait on the average twice as long, in order to get across.

Mr. Fernyhough: They would feel safer.

Mr. Nugent: Only if the drivers of vehicles invariably observed the lights. One of the difficulties at a crossing of this kind is that pedestrians do not always use the crossing and that there is not enough pedestrian traffic for drivers of vehicles to watch out as carefully as one would like. The pedestrian presses the button to get the light in his favour. Before it changes, he sees a gap in the traffic and nips across. The lights then turned red to stop the traffic, but drivers see no one on the crossing and they tend to go over the crossing when the lights are against them.
These things have been tried in other places, and the result in that kind of instance is that pedestrians are given a false sense of security rather than being made more safe. I assure the hon. Member that we have looked at this suggestion very carefully indeed. If we had thought it would help we would be very ready to adopt it. Incidentally, he will know that quite a significant number of these accidents have been collisions between vehicles which have stopped at the crossings, so that if we put lights there as well the probability would be that there would be more collisions rather than fewer. Undoubtedly that would interfere with the tremendously heavy

flow of traffic which somehow or other has to be got along the road. The police and our divisional road engineer advised against it and we felt bound to accept their advice. I am sorry that we were forced to reach that conclusion.

Mr. Ainsley: I think the police objected only on the ground that the lights might be misused, not that it would give pedestrians a false sense of security.

Mr. Nugent: Well, they advised against it and our divisional road engineer, who is very experienced, advised against it also. If the hon. Member is able to study in a little more detail the facts which I have given from the census, I think the will see that the likelihood is that it would conduce to less safety rather than more and on the whole it would be better not to introduce it. As soon as I looked at this site I thought that the answer was a central island, but unfortunately, the road is not wide enough and it is impossible to widen it sufficiently, so I am afraid that that suggestion is no use.
I wish to say a word or two about the red area scheme which was introduced and which I hope will be accepted as an indication that the Ministry takes this matter seriously. Those schemes are devised on particular lengths of road. The idea is to take a census of road accidents and road behaviour for six months beforehand. Then there is the month of the red area scheme, during which time there is intensive propaganda to try to bring home to road users generally that it is a dangerous piece of road and that they must take greater care. During that month the road is closely observed and in the following six months further observation is kept on it to see what improvements there is.
The Road Research Laboratory conducts these schemes and has been doing so for two or three years. The schemes show a slight improvement—one would not like to put it too high—over the whole area. This particular red area scheme, the Framwellgate Moor scheme, has not yet come into the analysis, but will do so in due course. I should like to think that it has caused some improvement. I should not like to put it too high because undoubtedly it is a difficult piece of road to cope with.
I have looked into the point mentioned by the hon. Member for Durham of the


possibility of having the 30 m.p.h. limit written on the road in big letters. There is some weight in the answer which he received, that the writing tends very quickly to get obscured by dirt, snow, or slush, and needs repainting frequently. Probably a greater objection is that we arc' not much accustomed to that kind of sign in this country. I have seen them in some European countries, but unless motorists are really accustomed to seeing road signs written on the roads they miss them and do not pay attention to them. That does not really help.
It might help here to put up one of our new, big, 30 m.p.h. discs. The standard discs are 18 in., but they are also made in 24 in. and 32 in. sizes, which are a great deal bigger. It may be possible to put, perhaps, the biggest of them—it depends on how the post is sited—at the entrances to the 30 m.p.h. stretch so that they would make a considerably greater impression on drivers as they entered it. I feel convinced from the reports which I have been given that our greatest difficulty is that the average driver is unaware when he is half-way through that he is still in a 30 m.p.h. limit. We will look into this possibility

straight away and see whether we can put up the large 30 m.p.h. notices.
If there is any other aid which we can devise to reduce the danger on this road and increase safety, we shall certainly use it. Hon. Members have referred to the police and goodness knows, they do their best to supervise and control the road. The large number of prosecutions shows that they do. Undoubtedly it is a burden on them. Anything we can do, mechanically or otherwise, to help them we shall gladly do.
I sympathise with the hon. Member for Durham and congratulate him on raising this topic. I am sure that this road gives him many anxieties and causes great anxiety for people who live in the neighbourhood. I hope that he will accept my assurance that anything which we can do to help him in the meantime, until the day comes for the by-pass scheme, we shall gladly do.

Mr. Grey: I thank the hon. Gentleman.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-one minutes past Ten o'clock.